Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

MR PERKINS: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I’m asking you directly and if you don’t mind address
the question directly. Would you be intending to appeal, or seek to appeal
or seek leave to appeal, against the declaration made on 16 April?
MR PERKINS: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. And would you also be seeking to appeal
against the penalty imposed today?
MR PERKINS: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And how long do you need to get your papers together
to do that?
MR PERKINS: 10 days, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: And how will you get over the time limit problems in
relation to the declaration?
MR PERKINS: Your Honour, it would be contended that the time for
appealing against the declaration should be extended and it would be said
- I don’t want to repeat the way I’ve put it - but it would be said that it is an
unsatisfactory course to take to break up what is essentially a criminal or
quasi criminal proceeding by the taking of interlocutory steps and it’s
contended that the courts have frequently said so much. And that it’s
contended that it would not - despite the considerations that I accept exist
and that your Honour put to me earlier, it would not have been
appropriate to break up the proceeding into a number of sub-proceedings
or subsets.
HIS HONOUR: I don’t know what the procedure is in Victoria or even
New South Wales, but I do know the procedure here. It is often the case
that an appeal is lodged against conviction prior to the sentence being
imposed and it’s often the case that the Court of Criminal Appeal will hear
the matter in relation to conviction before a sentence is imposed. So I
don’t think the point you make is right. It is right to say that you should
not break up the trial process by seeking interlocutory applications in
relation to either rulings or determinations during the trial process, but
once the trial is
MR PERKINS: That is what
HIS HONOUR: Once the trial is concluded it’s often the case in the
criminal law that the accused will seek leave to appeal against conviction
prior to sentence being imposed. Why it might have been the appropriate
procedure here is because your client apologised to me for his conduct. If
I’d known that that apology was upon the basis he did not accept that he
would be guilty of contempt, it might have given the apology a different
flavour. But, anyhow, I understand that point. And what would be the
grounds of the appeal against conviction - against the declaration?
125