Clarke, Peter Daniels v Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions [1998] FCA 1542

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 PETER DANIELS CLARKE v COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS No AG 98 of 1998 JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATED: 11 NOVEMBER 1998

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 98 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE Appellant AND: COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 1998 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September 1998 be refused. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 98 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE Appellant AND: COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECTIONS Respondent JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 1998 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GALLOP J:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against an order of Miles CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory refusing the application for committal proceedings against the applicant in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates' Court to be stayed until 4 January 1999 or thereafter. Having heard the applicant, I am of the view that the decision of Miles CJ is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the Full Court and no substantial injustice would result to the applicant if leave was refused. I would therefore refuse the application for leave. So doing does not mean that this court would be expressing any view one way or the other about the correctness of what his Honour said about the Dietrich case (Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292) and any application that might be made pursuant to Dietrich, but in my view there is just no merit in this application for leave to appeal and I dismiss it.