NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSW G.116 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: ANTHONY BRYANT & CO PTY LTD Defendant CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 15 MAY 1987 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for a stay of proceedings be dismissed. 2. The applicant to the notice of motion pay the respondent's costs of the notices of motion. 3. The exhibits be returned. AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: Note: Upon payment of the fine ordered, the Registrar of the Court invest the said fine in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the determination of the appeal in this matter or until further order. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with 1n Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN_THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSW G.124 of 1986 ~V~ ew vw GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: ANTHONY BRYANT & CO PTY LTD Defendant CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 15 MAY 1987 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. The application for a stay of proceedings be dismissed. 2. The applicant to the notice of motion pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion. 3. The exhibits be returned. AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: A. Note: Upon payment of the fine ordered, the Registrar of the Court invest the said fine in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the determination of the appeal in this matter or until further order. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSW G.135 of 1986 wee vw GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: VENN CHARLES WILLIAMS Defendant CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 15 MAY 1987 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. The application for e stay of proceedings be dismissed. 2. The applicant to the notice of motion pay the respondent's costs oz: the notice of motion. 3. The exhibits be returned. AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: Note: In the event that the fine already paid to the Registrar of the Court has not already been paid into consolidated revenue, the Registrar invest the said fine in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the determination of the appeal or until further order. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NSW G.146 of 1986 ) ) GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: BRIAN AHEARNE Defendant CORAM: WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 15 MAY 1987 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for a stay of proceedings be dismissed. 2. The applicant to the notice of motion pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion. 3. The exhibits be returned. AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: Note: In the event that the fine already paid to the Registrar of the Court has not already been paid into consolidated revenue, the Registrar invest the said fine in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the determination of the appeal or until further order. 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 DIVISION NSW G.116 and 124 of 1986 BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: ANTHONY BRYANT & CO PTY LTD Defendant NSW G.135 of 1986 BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: VENN CHARLES WILLIAMS Defendant NSW G.146 of 1986 BETWEEN: RONALD EDWARD ADAMS Prosecutor AND: BRIAN AHEARNE Defendant CORAM : WILCOX J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 15 MAY 1987 EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT There are before the Court amended notices of motions in four matters. They arise out of a judgment I gave on 14 April 1987 in which I imposed fines upon the respective defendants in each matter after pleas of guilty. In two cases, namely G.116 and G.124, the fines were imposed upon a company, Anthony Bryant & Co Pty Limited, 1n each case in the sum of $40,000. In the other two cases, namely G.135 and G.146, fines of $8,000 were imposed upon each of two individuals, being directors of Anthony Bryant. I understand that the two individual defendants have paid their respective fines but that the company has not yet paid the fines imposed upon it. Notices of appeal havc seen filed in each case. Application has been made today for a stay of proceedings in each matter pending further order of the Court. In the case of the company the intent is that, pending the outcome of the appeal, the company should not be obliged to pay the fines. In the case of the individual appellants, the intent is that the moneys already paid by way of fines should be refunded pending the outcome of the appeal. Other than tendering the notices of appeal, counsel for the applicants on the notices of motion has tendered no evidence in support of the application made by him. The orders that I made required payment of the fines within 21 days, a period which has now expired. At one stage I was told that some or all of the present applicants would be seeking an extension of time for paying the fines; I gathered, on the basis that to pay within 21 days would cause hardship or other difficulties. However, no such application has been made and there is no material before the Court to indicate that the payment of fines within the time stipulated by my order would occasion any hardship. In my view, there is no basis of principle upon which I can accede to the applications made to me today. The basic principle is that there is a presumption that a judgment appealed from is correct. Order 52 rule 17 of the Federal Court rules provides specifically that an appeal to the Court shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the judgment appealed from except so far as the Court or a judge may direct. The onus is on an applicant for a stay to put before the Court reasons why there should be a stay. It was recently said by Dawson J, 1n the Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Myer Emporium Ltd 64 ALR 325 at p.327, that such an application will be granted only where special circumstances exist. In the present case I have no material before me as to circumstances justifying such an order, whether special or otherwise. All that has been said on behalf of the applicants 1s that if the appeals succeed -- and I interpolate, given the fact that there were pleas of guilty, this should really be expressed "as to the extent that the appeals succeed and the appellants receive some refund of the fines they have paid in the meantime" -- they would have been deprived of the earning potential of that money pending the return of the money to them. I take this point, but I think that protection can be granted in this situation by adopting the course which T recently took in another matter and which I have discussed with counsel, namely, giving a direction to the Registrar for investment of the fines in authorized securities pending the determination of the appeals or other order. As I understand the course available to the Registrar, he will be able to put the money upon deposit at commercial rates and this will ensure that it earns interest in the meantime. I would envisage that to the extent that the appeals or any of them may succeed and money be refunded, then the appropriate interest would go back to the appellant. There may be circumstances where one would take a different course. If this was a case where there was evidence to show that 1n order to pay the fine some asset would have to be sold at a sacrificial price, there would be a case of hardship which would not be accommodated by the course which I have indicated. But no evidence has been put before me, despite my drawing attention to the omission of any such evidence, and I can only assume that no such hardship 1s involved. In these circumstances, I do not think that any case of circumstances warranting a stay 1s made out. It 1S not only a matter of ensuring that, in the long term, consolidated revenue receives whatever fines are properly payable. The imposition of a fine is a disciplinary matter and it is in the public interest, as has been submitted on behalf of the respondent, that fines which are imposed for disciplinary reasons be paid in the normal course and that there not be any idea abroad that one can simply purchase a postponement by an appeal. I emphasize that I am not suggesting that the appeals in this case are lodged for that purpose, but it is important that, unless there are good reasons, orders be complied with according to their terms. Consequently, I reject the application for a stay of proceedings in each matter. I make the following directions in regard to the fines: I direct that, upon payment of the fines ordered in matters G.116 and G.124, the Registrar of the Court invest the said fines in a security or securities authorized under the Trustee Act 1925 of New South Wales pending the determination of the appeals in those matters or further order. In the event that the fines already paid to the Registrar in matters G.135 and G.146 have not already been paid into consolidated revenue, I direct that a similar course be taken by the Registrar in respect of each of those fines. I order that the applicants to the notices of motion pay the respondent's costs of the notices of motion and the exhibits to be returned. I certify this and the four (4) preceding pages to be a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Wilcox. 4 - Associate: Pa Date: 10 June 1987 Counsel for the Applicants: Solicitors for the Applicants: Counsel for the Respondent: Solicitors for the Respondent: Date(s) of hearing: Mr J A Timbs Phillips Fox Mr J S Hilton Director of Public Prosecutions 15 May 1987