HEF TA =) — JUDGMENT No. .ncreccsssssessses/ SS. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. AG 84 of 1994 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN Applicant AND: PAUL GREGORY LANE S Respondent x 17 FEBRUARY 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. This is an application by the Crown for leave to appeal from the judgment of Gallop J. of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, given on 25 November 1994. The Crown, in fact, filed a notice of appeal within time from his Honour's judgment, but on further reflection it decided to file this application for leave to appeal lest the judgment of his Honour be interlocutory, rather than final. That application for leave to appeal was thus filed out of time. The application for leave to extend the time is not opposed. In any event, it seems to me that in all the circumstances which I have related, it is an appropriate case in which to allow an extension of time for filing the application. Accordingly, the court orders that the Crown be granted leave to file its application for leave to appeal out of time, provided it is filed by 30 January 1995. The court deems the application for leave to appeal that was filed on that date to be the application for leave to appeal. That then raises the question of whether or not the court should accede to the application for leave to appeal. It is not opposed by the respondent. The question of whether Gallop J.'s order is interlocutory is indeed a nice one. His Honour held that the trial of the respondent was a trial that should be stayed. He said: "The relevant delay was very substantial and there was really no satisfactory explanation for it." He dealt with certain other matters which are recorded at pages 26 and 27 of the transcript of the proceedings before him. In the result his Honour (at page 27) made an order permanently staying the prosecution of the indictment in the matter and discharged the accused from his bail. As at present advised, in my view the order made by his Honour of permanently staying the prosecution of the indictment is a final, not an interlocutory order. Leave to appeal is thus not necessary; but as the appeal will proceed to a hearing by a Full Court, the order that I will make is that the Court grants leave to the Crown to appeal from the judgment of Gallop J. of 25 September 1994 in so far as the same may be necessary. It is a case which, in my view, is appropriate for the granting of leave in all the circumstances. Costs of the application to extend time, and costs of the application for leave to appeal itself, Counsel for the Respondent Date of Hearing 3 17 February 1995 Date of Judgment appeal. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lockhart. Associate Dated: 17 Febr Counsel for the Applicant 3 Mr Madden shall be costs in the Ms Chadwick 17 February 1995