Squires, R.J. v Stephenson, K.

i

!

Respondents

!

10 February 1981 KEELY J.

I do n o t n e e d t o hear you, M r Cilmane, as I have declderl

t o g r a n t t h e a p p l l c a t i o n . I h a v e r e a d t h e a u T h o r i t i e s c i t e d

by counsel on b ~ t h s l d e s .

i

1 '

-. 7

o c c u r r j n g b e i o r e t h e s e r v l c e of t he o rde r upon the accused

i

pe r son in acco rdance wi.th Order 40 ru1.e 13(1). I do no t accep t

t h a t s u i ~ m l s s l o n . The view tha-t 1 t a k e 1s t h a t , on t h e wordlng

o f t ha t i -u l e , It p r e s c r l h e s a cond i t lon be fc re p roceed ings z re

I

commenced. Fourever, p r o v i d e d t h a t such s e r v l c e of t!:e ord2,r

h a s b e e n c a r r l e d o u t , li would n o t p r e v e n t p r o c e e d m g s I n

~-espec' i of 811 a l leged contempt of cour t occur r lng before such

s e r v i c e . The r u l e d o e s n o t say t h a t s u c h s e r v i c e n u s t h a v e

occur red be fo re the k l l rged con tempt no r does It m p l y I t i n

my opln lon . I t slmply requl res tha t such se rv i .ce will have

been e f f ec t ed be fo re the comuencement of the proceedings -

~ r r e s p e c t ~ . v e o f whether the al leged. contempt occurred before

o r after t h e s e r v i c e . T h a t r e a d l n g of t h e r u l e seems t o me t o

g a l n some support from what S l r Nige l Eou!en sald i n the

S u n l b r l t e c a s e (47 F.L.R. 73 a…