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." Mr Coombs argues, in effect, that the circumstances here are exceptional. There is evidence before me, not from Mr Wiest but from a Mr Grant, a consultant to a well known Sydney firm, that Mr Wiest has had substantial business dealings in Sydney. There is also evidence from an officer of the police in the form of exhibit 1, setting out certain information obtained by the police and 1t appears from that and from what Mr Coombs has told me that Mr Wiest is a man with substantial property. It appears from the evidence before me in the principal proceeding, in which I have recently given judgment, that Mr Wiest left Germany during the currency of his trial; Mr Coombs informed me, on instructions, that that occurred on a date which was, I think, after the 12th day of a 16-day trial. Mr Coombs' principal point, it seems to me, is that the history of Mr Wiest's conduct, insofar as these proceedings is concerned, has been satisfactory. On the other hand, his opponent points to such facts as that Mr Wiest left during the German proceedings, allegedly to go ona skiing holiday. The matter may be thought finely balanced but it seems to me that if I concur in what French J. says (and I do), bail must be refused. The orders will be: that the applicant be delivered forthwith to the Sheriff of this Court and that bail be refused. I will reserve the question of costs. { certify that this andthe <2 preceding Pages are a true copy of the reasons for Judgment herein of His Honour Mr. Justice Pincus Gurst-w Associata Dated 28 JU/y /988