IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) ) No. ACT G76 of 1983 ) ) ) DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : THE QUEEN . Applicant AND: FILIPPO PIZZATA Respondent ' ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Neaves J. DATE OF ORDER: 16 September 1983WHERE MADE: Canberra THE COURT ORDERS: That the time for service of the notice of appeal filed herein on 16 September 1983 be extended up to and including Wednesday, 21 September 1983. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. ACT G77 of 1983 DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: THE QUEEN Applicant is GIOVANNI MAMMOLITI Respondent ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Neaves J. DATE OF ORDER: 16 September 1983 WHERE MADE: Canberra THE COURT ORDERS: That the time for service of the notice of appeal filed herein on 16 September 1983 be extended up to and including Wednesday, 21 September 1983. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: a AND: ) ) No. ACT G80 of 1983 ) ) ) THE QUEEN Applicant tS DOMENICO NIRTA Respondent ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE: THE COURT ORDERS: Neaves J. 16 September 1983 Canberra That the time for service of the notice of appeal filed herein on 16 September 1983 be extended up to and including Wednesday, 21 September 1983. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Fan AND: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) ) ) No. ACT G76 of 1983 ) ) ) THE QUEEN Applicant FILIPPO PIZZATA Respondent AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: ) ) ) ) No. ACT G77 of 1983 ) ) ) THE QUEEN Applicant GIOVANNI MAMMOLITT Respondent IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION ay THE QUEEN ) ) No. ACT G80 of 1983 ) ) ) Applicant DOMENICO NIRTA BETWEEN: AND: CORAM: Neaves J. DATE: 16 September 1983 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Ex tempore) Respondent This is an application by the Crown under Order 3, rule 3 of the Rules of this Court seeking an extension of the time within which to serve notices of appeal against the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 26 August 1983 on Filippo Pizzata, Giovanni Mammoliti and Domenico Nirta. The three persons named were charged with three others, Antonio Giorgi, Domenico Condemi and Stefano Pelle, under paragraph 86(1)-(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth). It was alleged that they*conspired with certain named persons and with persons unknown to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, namely sub-section 4(3) of the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 of the Australian Capital Territory. That sub-section provides that a person who has a controlled substance in his possession for the purpose of supplying the substance to another person or to other persons is guilty of an offence. A "controlled sub- stance" is a substance specified in Schedule 8 or Schedule 12 to the Ordinance. The trial was before a Judge and jury. The jury convicted each of the six accused. Sentences were imposed on each of them on 26 August 1983. The trial was a lengthy one extending over many weeks. Georgi and Pelle (who are not named as respondents to this motion) and Domenico Nirta have appealed to this Court against their conviction and sentence. The Crown has appealed against the sentences imposed on each of the accused on the ground that each sentence is inadequate. The notices of appeal were filed this day being the last day of the period of 21 days prescribed by Order 52, rule 15. I am assured by counsel that the notices of appeal have been duly served within the time so prescribed on Giorgi, Condemi and Pelle. An attempt has been made this afternoon to serve Pizzata, Mammoliti and ¥ Nirta at their respective addresses in the Australian Capital Territory but without success. The relevant principles to be applied were referred to by a Full Court of this Court in Bishop v. The Queen (1982) 40 A.L.R. 40 at pp. 41-2. The Court there referred to the principles enunciated by Cullen C.J. in Morres v. Papuan Rubber & Trading Co. Limited ((1914) S.R. (N.S.W.) 141 at p. 144):- ",.... when a party, who has neglected to observe those requirements which the rules place him under for the protection of the other side, comes for the indulgence of the Court to ask that the proceedings shall continue notwithstanding that default, he has to satisfy the Court that justice requires that that default of his shall be overlooked, and he must satisfy the Court that there is some reasonable kind of explanation or excuse for his neglect of the rules". : The Crown has sought an extension of the time for service on the ground that because of the length and complexity of the trial a substantial part of the prescribed period of 21 days was taken up with a careful consideration of the matter before a decision was taken that appeals should be instituted on the ground that the sentences were inadequate. Reliance is also placed on the fact that the application Lo extend the time is made within the prescribed period of 21 days albeit at the last moment, In an ordinary case I would not regard delay in reaching a decision to appeal as warrant- ing an extension of time - but this can hardly be described as an ordinary case. bey "fy To this circumstance may be added the fact that the six accused were tried together on a charge of conspiracy. There are appeals by three of the accused and an appeal has been validly instituted by the Crown in relation to each of the six. As Deane J said in Bashop v. The Queen, (supra) speaking of a convicted person who has been sentenced:- "If the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal expires without a notice of appeal being served upon him, he is, in the absence of special circumstances, entitled to regard that period of double jeopardy as closed. In the special circumstances of an appeal against sentence, it would, in my view, be wrong and unjust after that period had ex- pired without a notice of appeal being served to accede to an application by the Crown to extend the period of time in which service could properly be effected unless there were ~ evidence disclosing an acceptable explanation of the failure to serve within time and unless special circumstances were established to justify the grant of the indulgence sought by the Crown." In the present case the time had not expired before the application was made to the Court and in all the circumstances I am prepared to extend the time for service of the notice of appeal in each case up to and including Wednesday 21 September 1983, y I certify that this and the' four (4) preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Neaves. Associate Dated: 16 September 1983.