Federal Court of Australia
q % CATCHWORDS Court of Petty Sessions - respondent bv consent dealt with
summarilv for an indictable offence - appeal to the Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory said to be incompetent - consideration of relevant provisions of Ordinance in force at
relevant time (note: pravisions of Ordinance since amended).
Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application to A.C.T.. ss. 59. 477,
Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930 (as in force in 1983). ss.
590A, 92, 113 - 116, 207, 208.
NETL WILLIAM GRAHAM v. RICHARD THOMAS NINNESS
No. ACT GS of 1985
Coram: Shepvoard, Neaves and Miles JJ. Date : 12 March 1986
Place: Canberra
ee epee ae ' et
pee
weer ge
tls
epee ee anes ee
oy
ee ae
were ees ee cece
coe,
Bay
wens
PTE A Tt
a
IN_ THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } ANISTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ; DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No, ACT G5 af 1985 GENERAL DIVISTON BETWEEN WEIL WILLIAM GRAHAM Appellant
RICHARD THOMAS NINNESS
Respondent
JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Sheppard. Neaves and Miles JJ. DATE OF ORDER : 12 March 1986
WHERE ORDER MADE : Canberra
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COUPT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pav the respondent's casts
Fa]
£ the appeal.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 346
of the Federal Court Pules.
Beer teen See nee
one
———
Se ee / a r 4
TN THE FEDERAL COURT OF ATISTRALTIA 3} AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BISTRICT PEGISTRY } No. ACT G5 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISTON BETWEEN NEIn WILLTAM GRAHAM Appellant AND:
PICHARD THOMAS NINNESS
Respondent
Bo
CORAM: Sheppard. Neaves and Miles JJ.
DATE : 12 March 1986
REASONS FOR JIDGMENT
THE COURT: This is an appeal from a decision of fhe Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory {Gallop J.) in which it was held that it was competent for the respondent to appeal to
that Court aqainst his conviction and sentence by the Court of
's
Petty Sessions of che Terriforv an a charge of assault laid pursuant fo s. 59 of the Crimes Act, 1900 %(N.S.W.) in its application to the Australian Capital Territorv. ~ The apveal to this Court being against an interlocutory order that the apveal WAS competent, leave to apneal was necessarv. Noa apolication for
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate