Wiest, E.A v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 476

JUDGMENT No. 476m £8

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION )

N.S.W. G1062 of 1988

BETWEEN: EUGEN ALEXANDER WIEST

Applicant

AND: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

First Respondent

AND: RICHARD PETER MISZALSKI

Second Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 28 JULY 1988 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the applicant be delivered forthwith to the Sheriff of this Court;

2. bail be refused;

3. the costs be reserved.

NOTE: 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 )

N.S.W. G1062 of 1988

BETWEEN: EUGEN ALEXANDER WIEST

Applicant

AND: THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

First Respondent

AND: RICHARD PETER MISZALSKI

Second Respondent

PINCUS J. DATE: 28 JULY 1988

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter I delivered judgment today; bail pending

appeal is sought.

On the contentions made by Mr Coombs Q.C. on behalf of his client, it seems to me that the foreshadowed appeal is by no

means frivolous. In Hempel v. Moore French J. dealt with a

similar situation and the case is reported in 70 A.L.R. 714. There the application for bail was considered by French J. at a similar stage; that is, a stipendiary magistrate had committed the appellants to prison, that had been reviewed by this Court before a single justice, unsuccessfully, and there was an appeal to the

Full Court pending. The judgment of French J. discusses the

question of bail in those circumstances and comes to a conclusion,

expressed as follows, at p.722:

"In my opinion the policy of the Act as derived from the legislative scheme requires that bail not be granted after review and pending appeal other than in exceptional circumstances."