&: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAFITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY No. ACT G 33 of 1985 ~~ ye errwere GENERAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN : OMAR OMAR Appellant AND: GEOFFREY EDWARD LANHAM Respondent CORSM: Neaves J. DATE: 26 June 1985 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT This is an application by Omar Omar ("the appellant") for bail pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to this Court against the severity of a sentence imposed on the applicant on 20 June 1985 by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant was charged, originally before the Court of Petty Sessions, with an offence against section 188 of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.) in 1ts application to the Territory "- at ms . of receiving goods, to wit a stereo, knowing the same to have been stolen. He was convicted on 31 July 1984. The magistrate decided that he should, without passing a sentence of itmprisonmenr, release the appeilant upon his entering into a bond himself in the sum of, $560 upon Ehe Following conditions: that he be of good behaviour for a period of two vears from that day and that he pay, as a penalty to the Commonwealth, the sum of $500 within 90 days. From his conviction, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. I understand that, pending the appeal, the applicant was allowed bail. The appeal did not come before the Court - that is, the Supreme Court - until 19 and 20 June 1985. On the latter date the appeal was dismissed and the appellant convicted of the offence and sentenced to imprisonment for nine months. The applicant, as I have said, has appealed to this Court against the severity of that sentence. There is little material before me, either as to the circumstances of the offence or, in particular. as to the matters which the learned judge of the Supreme Court took into account in fixing the sentence. It is established that the principle which governs the qranting of ball after conviction and sentence 15 that 1 will not peé granted otherwise than in exceptional circumstances. The circumstances. taken in combination, upon which the appellant relies to establish the necessary exceptional circumstances. may be summarised as follows: that the prospects of the appellant succeeding in his appeal are good; that the Court may be confident that the appellant will answer his bail, if granted; that there is a disparity between the sentence imposed on him and the sentence imposed on the principal offender who was convicted of stealing the qoods in question: and that a period of some four months may elapse before the appeal is heard and determined, unless steps are taken to expedite the hearing. Although the case is, in my view, a border-line one, I have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances, bail should be qranted. I, therefore, order that the appellant be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to this Court upon him entering into a recognizance, self in the sum of $1000 and one surety in the sum of $1000, to appear at this Court when the appeal comes on for hearing or at such earlier date as the Court may determine. I order that the appellant take all necessary steps to have the appeal papers for the use of the Court and the parties prepared and filed not later than 19 July 1985 and forthwith thereafter approach the District Registrar of the Court to fix a date for the hearing of the appeal. I certify that this and the preceding 3 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judament herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Neaves. Dated: 26 June 1985