Re Lattouf, N.M.

The matter before the court involves Noel Michael Lattouf, who was convicted of larceny by a bailee under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Following his conviction, the District Court deferred passing sentence and ordered him into a conditional recognizance. Lattouf subsequently applied for a stay of the proceedings related to the breach of the recognizance conditions. Sheppard J. granted the stay, but the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) moved to discharge the stay order. This led to a Full Court determination that the Federal Court had the power to grant the stay, and the matter was remitted for further consideration by a single judge. The DPP (NSW) also applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which is currently in abeyance.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to grant the stay order and, if so, how to proceed with the discharge application by the DPP (NSW). The court needed to determine the appropriate timeline for filing further affidavits, the necessity of a hearing de novo, and the required steps for both parties to present their cases.

The court concluded that the matter should proceed in the Federal Court rather than waiting for the High Court's decision on the special leave application. It was deemed unnecessary to delay the criminal process further, and the outcome of the proceedings in the Federal Court would effectively determine the fate of the special leave application. The court directed the DPP to file any further affidavits by 29 November 1994 and provide points of claim by 6 December 1994. It also granted Lattouf until 3 February 1995 to file any affidavit evidence and points of defence in response to the points of claim. The matter was listed for further directions on 9 February 1995.

The court certified that the reasons for judgment accurately reflect its decision and set the date for the return of subpoenas as 14 December 1994. The judgment was dated 28 November 1994, heard on 22 November 1994, and delivered in Sydney. The final orders included setting specific deadlines for the filing of affidavits and points of claim, listing a date for further directions, and fixing a date for the return of subpoenas.