Tahmindjis, A.J. & Ors v. Brown, B.R. & Ors [1985] FCA 296

plo ")

IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA

J ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT PEGISTRY ) No. ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

JUDGE: DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE:

No. No. No.

BETWEEN:

G126 G396 G412 G101

of 1983 of 1984 of 1984 of 1985

ALEXANDER JOHN TAHMINDIIS

NICHOLAS CASSIMATIS

THOMAS ERVIN MOSS

JOHN NICHOLAS CASTANOS

AND:

Applicants

BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN

First Respondent

AND:

7.A.HAYNES PETER LAMB

A.WELLS @.S8.FOSTER

Second Respondents

REASONS FOR ORDER

FOX J. 5 June 1985

Sydnev.

When I delivered mv reasons on the question of denial of

natural justice, I stood over until 5 June three matters:

(a) the question of costs.

(b) settling of the form of other orders to be made. {c) directions as to the hearing of an issue 'outstanding. namely whether it was open to the Magistrate bearing in mind the terms of s.41A of the Justices Act, 1902 to make an order discharging the present applicants when the informants told the Magistrate that thev did not intend to proceed with the information alleging the general conspiracv, and to make an order for costs in their favour. This question

remains a live issue.

After hearing submissions. I have concluded that an order should be made in each case that the committal order be set aside, that the informant in each case pav the applicant's costs of the proceedings before me, limited in the case of Dr. Castanos to the employment of one counsel and that the hearing of the outstanding issue be fixed for an earlv date. I decided that I should refuse an application on behalf of Dr. Castanos to adda

qround to his application to deal with the outstanding issue.

The proceedings by the latter thereupon terminated.

I excused counsel for the Magistrate from further

attendance.

wa)

In relation to costs it was submitted on behalf of the informants (respondents before me) that thev should be required to pay only one set of costs. There were however four separate defendants (applicants before me) and each was entitled to present his case. Although counsel for the informants did not argue against the substance of what was put in relation to denial of natural dustice. this attitude was only announced during the course of the proceedings, no concession was made on behalf of the informants. and discretionary grounds had to be addressed. In addition. there was the backaround consideration that the prosecution knew, at the time. of the Magistrate's transgression.