The Queen v Pizzata, Filippo - [1983] FCA 256

I N THE

FEDERAL

COURT

A U S T m I A )

)

AUSTRALIAN

C PITAL

ERRITORY

) No. ACT G76 of 1983

DISTRICT	REGISTRY
GENERAL	D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN :

THE QUEEN

3 A p p l i c a n t

AND :

FILIPPO PIZZATA

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGE

MAKING

ORDER:

Neaves J.

DATE

ORDER:

1 6 S e p t e m b e r

1 9 8 3

WHERE

MADE:

C a n b e r r a

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the time for service of t h e notice of appeal

f i led herein on

1 6 S e p t e m b e r 1983 be extended up

t o and

including Wednesday,

2 1 S e p t e m b e r 1983.

IN THE	FEDERAL	COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL	TERRITORY	1
) N o . ACT G77 of 1983

DISTRICT	REGISTRY
GENERAL	D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN :

THE QUEEN

. i	Appl i can t

AND :

GIOVANNI

MAK*IOLITI

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:

Neaves J.

DATE OF ORDER:

16 September

1983

WHERE MADE:

Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS:

Tha t t he

time

f o r s e r v i c e

t h e n o t i c e

appea l

f i l e d h e r e i n on 16

September 1983 be extended

up t o

and including

Wednesday,

2 1 September 1983.

I N THE F E D E W COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPS'I'AL TERRITORY	1
1 No. ACT G80 of 1983

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

t,	A p p l i c a n t

-7

AND :

DOMENICO NIRTA

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGE MA?LING ORDER:

Neaves J.

DATE

OF ORDER:

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 3

MADE:	WHERE	C a n b e r r a
THE COURT ORDERS:

That the time for service of t h e notice of appeal

f i led herein on

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 3

extended up t o

and inc lud ing Wednesday,

2 1 September 1983.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACT G76 of 1983

DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

BETWEEN : S

THE QUEEN

Applicant

AND :	FILIPPO PIZZATA
-

Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL

TERRITORY

)

No. ACT G17 of 1983

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

THE QUEEN

Applicant

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Queen v Pizzata, Filippo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1983] FCA 256
Decision Date: 16 Sep 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In The Queen v. Filippo Pizzata [1983] FCA 60, the Crown sought an extension of time to serve notices of appeal against sentences imposed on Filippo Pizzata, Giovanni Mammoliti, and Domenico Nirta by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The respondents were convicted of conspiracy to supply controlled substances. The Crown appealed the sentences on the ground that they were inadequate. The notices of appeal were filed on the last day of the 21-day period prescribed by the Federal Court Rules. The Crown sought an extension of time to serve the notices of appeal on Pizzata, Mammoliti, and Nirta, as attempts to serve them at their respective addresses had been unsuccessful.

Neaves J considered whether to grant the extension of time for service of the notices of appeal. The relevant principles were those enunciated by Cullen CJ in Morres v. Papuan Rubber & Trading Co. Limited, where it was held that a party who has neglected to observe the rules must satisfy the court that justice requires the default to be overlooked and that there is some reasonable explanation or excuse for the neglect. Neaves J noted that the length and complexity of the trial had taken up a substantial part of the prescribed 21-day period, and that the Crown's application for an extension was made within the prescribed period, albeit at the last moment. Given the special circumstances of the case, including the fact that the six accused were tried together on a charge of conspiracy, and that there were appeals by three of the accused and an appeal by the Crown in relation to each of the six, Neaves J was prepared to extend the time for service of the notice of appeal in each case up to and including Wednesday, 21 September 1983.

The court ordered that the time for service of the notice of appeal filed on 16 September 1983 be extended up to and including Wednesday, 21 September 1983, in each of the cases of Filippo Pizzata, Giovanni Mammoliti, and Domenico Nirta.

Orders