The Queen v. Firth, Russell Howard [1979] FCA 13

LY Ny IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) '----- come ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ) NTG 1 of 1978 NORTHERN TERRITORY OT AUSTRALIA ) ) REGISTRY } ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREML COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALTA BETWEEN: THE QUEFN Appellens AND: RUSSELL HOWARD FIRTH Respondent (De!endant) JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Brennan, Deane and Gallop JJ DATE OF ORDER. lst March, 1979. WHERE MADE. Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. That the appeal be dismissed.

2. That the appellant pay the respondent's costs. taacd.

IN THE FEDNRAL COURT Ol AUSTRALIA )

* GENERAL DIVISION

NTG 1 of 1978 NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

Nat Ne a er

REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN 'WRRI TORY OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: 'TIE QUDEN

Appellant

AND RUSSELI, FOWARD FIRY

Respondent (Defendant)

CORAM. Brennan, Deane and Gallop JJ.

ist March, 1979.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRONNAN J. I agree with his Honour Mr. Justice Deanc

in the conclusion which he has reached and in his reasons for

reaching 11. I would add a few observations.

Whether s.20A of the Crimes Act 1914 furnished the Crown with the opportunity of secking a variation of the conditions of the recognizance or net, it would require

eroerd evreimstanes> in meyer t oan viterference hh, i}

hos Cuurl with the conditions vo a revoguléanee granted ten monks ago, especially where the interference 18 sought by the Crown

as appellant.

w

No special circumstances appear, for a mere

error does not constitute special circumstances. Clearly, a

condition could not be imposed retrospectively if its effect

were to work a liability to forfeiture even though the offender had done nothing which was in breach of the recognizance at

the time it was done. And if it be suggested that the recognazans should be prospectively varied, that application cannot be entertained after the cxpiration of almost half of the recog- nizance period. The delay and the nature of the variation