365 " IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY } -No.G126 of 1983 ) GENERAL DIVISION an) tl BETWEEN : ALEXANDER JOHN TAHMINDITS ae Applicant AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN 7s First Respondent / J.A.HAYNES Second Responent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE: FOX J. wee: DATE OF ORDER: 30 JULY 1985 ee WHERE MADE: Sydney. we THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The order for committal the subject of these proceedings be set aside. \ 1 : 2. 0 The matter be referred to the first respondent: eae Coe Bea ag) ore ee en EP PE TL eT I LOT aE (a) to discharge the applicant in respect of the information and charge against him. (b) with the consent of the parties to make such order or orders for costs of the proceedings before him or any part or parts théreof as to him seems proper. {c) alternatively to (b) to take such other steps with the consent of the parties as to him seem proper with a view to having such order or orders made for the costs of the proceedings or any part or parts thereof as may be fitting. 3. The second respondent pav the costs of the applicant of the proceedings in this Court. 4, There be no order as to the costs of the first . respondent of proceedings in this Court. 5. Liberty to apply. NOTE oy Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISTON No.G394 of 1984 BETWEEN : NICHOLAS CASSIMATIS Applicant AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN First Respondent PETER LAMB Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE: FOX J. DATE OF ORDER: 30 JULY 1985 WHERE MADE: Svdney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The order for committal the subject of these proceedings be set aside. 2. The matter be referred to the first respondent: NOTE RT ee ee meee Pa i (a} to discharge the applicant in respect of the information and charge against hin. (b) with the consent of the parties to make such order or orders for costs of the proceedinas before him or any part or parts thereof as to him seems proper. {c) alternatively to (b) to take such other steps with the consent of the parties as to him seem proper with a view to having such order or orders made for the costs of the proceedings or any part or parts thereof as may be fitting. The second respondent pay the costs of the applicant of the proceedings in this Court. There be no order as to the costs of the first respondent of proceedings in this Court. Liberty to apply. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.G416 of 1984 wee nw GENERAL DIVISTON BETWEEN : THOMAS ERVIN MOSS Applicant H AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN | Respondent AND: A. WELLS Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE: FOX J. DATE OF ORDER: 30 JULY 1985 WHERE MADE: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: i. The order for committal the subject of these proceedings be set aside. 2. The matter be referred to the first respondent: A aI le Sea EO AR ee A RE Lot a ee ee ere rn ee ek ed 7 vee PL ett: Aha wrong TPN TYEE STS + 6 NOTE: (a) to discharge the applicant in respect of the information and charge against hin. (b) with the consent of the parties to make such order or orders for costs of the proceedings before him or any part or parts thereof as to him seems proper. ({c) alternatively to (b) to take such other steps with the consent of the parties as to him seem proper with a view to having such order or orders made for the costs of the proceedings or any part or parts thereof as may be fitting. The second respondent pay the costs of the applicant of the proceedings in this Court. There be no order as to the costs of the first respondent of proceedings in this Court. Liberty to apply. Settlement and entrv of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. i ging 8h a IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISTON JUDGE: DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The order for committal the subject of these proceedings be set aside. 2. The matter be referred to the first respondent: No.G101 of 1985 ~~ wv BETWEEN : JOHN NICHOLAS CASTANOS Applicant AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN First Respondent AND: C.S.FOSTER Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER FOX J. 30 JULY 1985 TE A Re I RTD ENE AA '- = TF ane y > LO ETT NTN ET I TNE EO NOLEN, , (a) to discharge the applicant in respect of the information and charges against him. (b) with the consent of the parties to make such order' or orders for costs of the proceedings before him or any part or parts théreof as to him seems proper. (c) alternatively to (b) to take such other steps with the consent of the parties as to him seem proper with a view to having such order or orders made for the costs of the proceedings or any part or parts thereof as may be fitting. 3. The second respondent pay the costs of the applicant of the proceedings in this Court, such costs to be limited to one counsel. : 4, There be no order as to the costs of the first respondent of proceedings in this Court. ! 5. Liberty to apply. NOTE Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 ry of the Federal Court Rules. FOOT NEE LN LOT IO NEL TNT REE EN NRL EN TO LR IA NANO A TO INN NEE IAT NET ERENT | IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.G126 of 1983 No.G394 of 1984 No.G416 of 1984 No.G101 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : ALEXANDER JOHN TAHMINDJTS NICHOLAS CASSIMATIS THOMAS ERVIN MOSS JOHN NICHOLAS CASTANOS Applicants AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN First Respondent AND: J.A. HAYNES PETER LAMB A. WELLS C.S. FOSTER Second Respondents CORAM: FOX Jd. DATE: 30 JULY 1985 FURTHER REASONS FOR ORDERS . FOX J. On this matter coming on for further arqument before me on 10 July, additional evidence was tendered, relative to the TREN RIT A TINT IE AINE FO TL A ONS EL MAPA NIN CONES NOTES TEES GFE OEM GOO, ee | course of proceedings before the magistrate, and it was stated by counsel for the informants that it was not intended to adduce further evidence in the Local Court in support of the charges. Letters from the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions were tendered, suggesting three options were open to the Director: (a) to take no further steps in the prosecution, (b) to begin fresh committal proceedings or (c) to proceed by way of ex-officio indictment. Course (b) was not favoured. The applicants were invited to make submissions. I took the burden of the submissions on behalf of the informants to be that, having in mind my earlier findings. the matter should not be remitted to the magistrate, but. the informations still being on foot, it was a matter for the Local Court as to how the charges therein, and the subsequent charges, should be resolved. For the applicants, it was submitted that the matters now before me should be remitted, probably to the same magistrate, with directions to the effect that the applicants should be discharged, and costs assessed, as seemed appropriate. It was agreed that in view of the amendments to the Justices Act, 1902 made by Act No. 1 of 1985, it was not appropriate to decide a question originally posed concerning the correctness of the magistrate's view, or his application. of Ex parte McQuillan (1932) 49 W.N. (N.S.W.) 87. The discretion qiven by Ppara.16(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has been relied upon by the applicants. It gives the Court power to make "an order referring the matter to which the decision relates to the person who made the decision for further consideration, subject to such directions as the Court thinks fit." This would involve references back to the first respondent. The difficulty here is that it was what he did that led to the invalidity of the committal orders, and his conduct was not a matter of a casual slip or oversight, but something which continues to affect his suitability to deal with the particular cases, so far at least as concerns any exercise of judgment on matters of substance. On the other hand, the case was one of such proportions that it is quite unreasonable to expect that it can be commenced afresh, even in relation to the present applicants. Some consent could be forthcoming which would facilitate this course, but the present indications are firmly against such a possibility. Paragraph 16(1)(d) has also been relied upon. It enables directions to be qdiven to a party. It seems to me that the most satisfactory course is to refer the matters to the learned magistrate who decided them, with 2. direction that he discharge the applicants, defendants before hin. Sub-section 41A(1) of the Justices Act deals with costs as follows: "A1A.(1L) The Justice or Justices making any order = ern, EOE ET RE TE = discharging a defendant as to the information then under inquiry may in and by such order adiudge that the informant shall pay to the clerk of the court to be by him paid to the defendant such costs as to such Justice 1 or Justices seem just and reasonable." There is no indication in the present case that the informants will agree to any order for costs which is acceptable to the applicants. The situation would then arise that the first respondent could not deal with costs, and if he effected the discharge, no other magistrate could. On the other hand, if he ' secured another magistrate to take over the proceedings, for the purposes of discharge and costs, that magistrate would be ata serious disadvantage, and would in any event pursue such course as to him seemed proper. He is not a party to these proceedings, and I cannot give him directions. I could conceivably resolve the dilemma bv directing that the first respondent decide the matter of costs. He is of course the person equipped to do so. I do not think however that I can vouchsafe dispensations in this way. In the interests of the administration of justice, what most needs to be done is to bring the proceedings before the ' Local Court to an end. Costs, although considerable in amount, are secondary, and the applicants have plainly enough been at A risk with respect to obtaining an order for them since the ground of natural justice was pursued. They would certainly seem, in justice, to be entitled to costs solely or mainiv related to the t TOT RE EN RE RAN ATE AT: SIR TRI HAUNTS EERE, Vg tn ATL LE oy CSP a SI TE SN eT ~> 3 bape > ST Ol rd Ne end general conspiracy charge, because their co-defendants who have been discharged received sums for their costs. The most satisfactory course is that I order that the matters be referred to the learned magistrate with directions (a) that he discharge the defendants in respect of the information and charges before him and (b) that, with the consent of the parties, he make such order for costs of those proceedings, or any part or parts of them as to him seems proper. and (c) as an alternative to (b) that he take such other steps with the consent of the parties as to him seem proper with a view to having such order or orders made for costs of the proceedings or any part or parts thereof as may be fitting. I give liberty to apply. meet ee os certify thst this and the Teur (4) » a I preceding betes ava ge itus comy er the , = aa a... terder, . ae - ; Further | Reaseus S12 Jeesecet meoc n oF nis tomes Juiz. Justice FOX y Fehr kane : ANI Associate Dacea: 30 July {Fes '