FRUGTNIET v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NSW SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA 20 May 1997 [1997] NSWCA 118 Meagher JA. The applicant is a Mr Frugtniet who is seeking a stay of proceedings or, more appropriately, an extension to the stay of proceedings from a judgment of this Court which was heard on 14 February 1997 and was given on 13 May 1997. He is in custody in a New South Wales gaol on a charge to do with the forging of financial documents. He was given a sentence, the terms of which will enable him to be released as of right on 20 July 1997. Simultaneously, he has to face criminal charges in relation to similar matters in Victoria. The Victorian proceedings are not yet ready to proceed though they are almost ready to proceed. In those proceedings his wife is a co-accused. If the prosecution in Victoria were told to proceed as soon as possible I take it that the case would proceed within a few weeks. The litigation in Victoria has already been the subject of certain interlocutory and case management proceedings before Mr Justice Smith. The Victorian authorities sought an order under the Prisoners Interstate Transfer Act (1982), that Mr Frugtniet could be transferred from Sydney to Melbourne. That application was heard twelve months ago by a magistrate and an order was made. An appeal was made in August last year to her Honour Justice Simpson, who dismissed the appeal. A further appeal from her Honour's judgment to this Court was heard and dismissed on 13 May this year. Mr Frugtniet now wishes to protract further the already protracted litigation by conducting a special leave application to the High Court. He has already started that procedure. One can have no assurance that that application will be prosecuted with any diligence. At least one other application has been presented to the High Court and not prosecuted with any diligence at all. It is in these circumstances Mr Frugtniet seeks a stay of proceedings until after this lastest special leave application has been determined. In my view the application should not be granted. The trial in Victoria will have to take place in Victoria before a Victorian judge unless the matter is settled, in which case the settlement will take place in Victoria. I cannot see, and there is no evidence before me, that his condition will be any worse in a Victorian gaol than it is in a New South Wales gaol. His legal representatives, if legal aid is granted, will be Victorian. They will need to consult with him about the Victorian trial within Victoria. His wife, in any event, has to go from New South Wales to Victoria because she is a co-accused. There is no ground I can think of, of the many grounds suggested by Mr Frugtniet, which would justify any further extension of the stay. In my opinion this application should be dismissed. The Notice of Motion is dismissed, with costs. Orders accordingly.