JEFFERY v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — CouRT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 19 April 1993 [1993] NSWCA 144 Mahoney JA. This matter has been before the court on a number of occasions before. As I understand the position, and I state it so that it can be crystallised for future dealing with the matter, there is an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal to restore to the list an appeal against conviction. If that application is successful and if the appeal succeeds then the matter the subject of the present appeal will be vitally affected in that as I am informed the property in question will automatically revest in the applicant, the appellant Mr Jeffery. I am putting that matter in general terms. It may be that there are qualifications to what I have said, but that I think substantially encompasses what has been put to the Court. If that be so then there would be no point in proceeding with the present appeal. On the other hand, if the application for a relisting of the appeal against criminal conviction is not successful and the effect is that the criminal appeal is at an end then this matter must proceed. There is the possibility that the court will fix a date for the hearing of the criminal appeal at some time in the future. Whether that would mean that the preparation of this appeal should be further delayed pending that is a matter which I have not considered. In the circumstances therefore the parties agree that the appropriate order is that the present matter stand over until 3 May 1993. The parties should then be in a position to indicate to the court what is the present state of the application and if the application was successful in the appeal in the criminal matters, so that the court can then deal with this matter. If the appeal has been fixed for a particular date or it is as it were resuscitated and still alive, then the parties should give consideration to the question whether the preparation of the present appeal should proceed or whether it should merely await the outcome of the criminal matter. On that I have formed no opinion, but the parties no doubt can consider the matter and hopefully it will not be necessary to argue it on the next occasion. I note the affidavit of Leigh Diane Johnson of 19 April 1993 filed in order to tender some explanation as to the delay to the present time. I note that I have not considered the substance of that affidavit or whether it complies with the direction which is in question. The only order that I make at the moment is that the matter be listed again on 3 May 1993 and that the costs of today are reserved. Orders accordingly.