FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sage an examiner appointed under s 46B of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 v ZZ (No 3) [2015] FCA 576
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
GEOFFREY ERNEST (TIM) SAGE AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 46B OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 Applicant | |
AND: | Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The respondent, ZZ, be released from custody forthwith.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 380 of 2014 |
BETWEEN: | GEOFFREY ERNEST (TIM) SAGE AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 46B OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 Applicant |
AND: | ZZ Respondent |
JUDGE: | NICHOLAS J |
DATE: | 5 June 2015 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 8 May 2015 a Judge of this Court sentenced the respondent to imprisonment on four counts of being in contempt of the Australian Crime Commission under s 34A(c) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (see Sage, an examiner appointed under s 46B of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 v ZZ (No 2) [2015] FCA 450). The orders made by the sentencing Judge included the following:
Pursuant to s 77(1)(b) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), the Governor of the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre or such other prison in the State of New South Wales in which ZZ is held in lawful custody, have ZZ, a person in lawful custody, appear before the Federal Court of Australia at Queens Square, Sydney, NSW 2000 during the further hearing of the proceeding concerning him on 23 October 2015 and duly returned to confinement thereafter, unless the Court otherwise orders.
His Honour also granted the parties leave to restore the proceeding on 24 hours’ notice or such other notice as to a judge seems fit.
2 It is apparent from a consideration of the sentencing Judge’s reasons that he was of the view that the respondent might be released from prison once he purged his contempt. This was something which his Honour observed the respondent could do at any time: see his Honour’s reasons at [28].
3 On 27 May 2015 the proceeding was re-listed before me in my capacity as Duty Judge. The respondent’s solicitor informed me that his client was ready to purge his contempt. Arrangements were then made to enable the respondent to attend an examination before the applicant so that the respondent might be given a further opportunity to do so. That examination occurred earlier today. During the course of that examination the respondent provided the applicant with further answers to a number of questions.
4 It is accepted by the applicant that the respondent has, by the answers given by him to the applicant during today’s examination, purged his contempt.
5 In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the respondent now be released from custody. I will make an order that the respondent be released from custody forthwith.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Nicholas. |
Associate:
