Thomas Errin Moss v Bruce Raymond Brown

[1983] FCA 1

I N THE FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTPALIA

/

NEW SOUTH WALES D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

MO. G . 2 5 0 of 1 9 8 2

THOt5AS ERVIM I4OSS

A p p l i c a n t

and

m u m FAYNOND aRom

First R e s p o n d e n t

and

PETER LX4A

Second Respondent

ORDERS

JUDGE KAKING ORDERS : S T . JOHEJ, J. ,

DATE OF ORDERS: T URSDAV G YTANUARY 1 9 83

SYDNEY WHERE IWDE: AT

THE COURT ORDERS TIIZT:

L.

1. The appl icant f i l e any a d d l t i o n a l f ac t s or

d o c u m e n t a r y evldence relled upon m suppor t

of the a p p l i c a t l o n w l t h i n twenty-one ( 2 1 )

days of t h i s date .

. . . / 2

2

2. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r review b e f l x e d f o r

h e a r i n g i n e a r l y F e b r u a r y	1 9 8 3	by	consul-
t a t l o n w i t h t h e r e g i s t r a r .

3. No o r d e r a s to c o s t s .

I N THE FEDE3AL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

No. G. 250 of 1982

THOMAS ERVIN MOSS

A p p l i c a n t

and

BRUCC RkYXOPITD BRONri

First R e s p o n d e n t

and

PETER LAXD

Second R e s p o n d e n t

REPSOXS FOR JUDGIICKT

(EXTEMPORE)

ST. JOHN, J.	\
THURSDAY 6 JANUARY 19 83

AT SYDNEY

This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n by the respondent

Peter Lapb for e x p e d l t i o n of a n a p p l i c a t l o n by

Thornas E r v i n Iloss t o r e v i e w a dec l s ion of H i s

K o r s h i p B r u c c R a y m o n d B l o w n (t5e f i r s t r e s p o n d e n t ) m a d e a t the end oE commlttal proceedlnys l n which

. . ./2

2

t h e a p p l i c a n t was charged with consplracy and

a g a l n s t whom a p r lma f ac l e case was found.

To t h e a p p l l c a t i o n t h e seconc? respondent

has f l l e d an object lon to the competency of

t h l s c o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t there i s no ~ u r l s d l c k l o n

i n t h e c o u r t t o r e v l e w t h e d e c i s l o n o f t h e f l r s t

respondent, and It is p u t t o me t h a t t h e m a t t e r

should Se urgent ly dea l t w i t h d u r m g t h e v a c a t l o n

on t h e basis t h a t it 1s I n t h e p u b l i c l n t e r e s t

t h a t It be decided.

The p r e s e n t p o s i t l o n of t h e c o r r n l t t a l

proceedinns 1s t h a t on 18 Janua ry nex t t he mag i s t r a t e

wlll s e e k f r o r r t h e a p p l i c a n t a n i n d i c a t l o n a s t o

whe the r o r no t he p roposes to ca l l ev idence and i f

he does so p r o p o s e t o c a l l e v i d e n c e , t h a t e v l d e n c e

wlll be hea rd In Narch o€ t h i s ye&.

The d e c l s i o n I n r e s p e c t of whlch t h e a p p l l c a t i o n

€or revlew has been made i s t h e d e c i s l o n t h a t a prlma

f ac i e ca se has been made out . In those c i rcumstances

I see no grounds f o r t r e a t m g t h i s n a t t e r as urgent .