Tieken v The Queen

In the case of Tieken v The Queen, the defendant Josephus Tieken faced a trial upon indictment in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, was the prosecutor. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Burchett, Tamberlin, and Kiefel JJ, in Canberra on 23 October 1995. The central issue before the court was whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, having availed himself of section 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, could subsequently discontinue the proceedings. The court also needed to interpret Order 22 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules to determine the appropriate course of action.

The court considered the matter in light of the previous decision made by a Full Court constituted by Gallop, Beaumont, and Ryan JJ on 30 June 1994, which had raised the question of whether a Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney-General who had exercised section 30A could withdraw from the proceedings. The court noted that it had not decided the point at the time and was not referred to Order 22, rule 2 of the Rules. The Full Court held that Order 22, rule 2 should not be narrowly construed, and on its fair reading, it applied to this situation. The court deemed it appropriate for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be granted leave to discontinue the proceedings under that rule, especially given that the Director had indicated through counsel that this was their wish.

As a result of the court's reasoning, it was decided that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be granted leave to discontinue the proceedings. The court certified that the judgment and preceding pages were a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment. The final orders of the court were that the Director of Public Prosecutions had leave to discontinue the proceedings.