Masoud v The Queen [2000] FCA 435

Masoud v The Queen [2000] FCA 435

The motions were dismissed because, even assuming o 52 r 40 could support an order concerning continuing custody, the applicants did not show any real risk that transfer from Belconnen Remand Centre would deny due process, frustrate or impede their appeals, or threaten the administration of justice in the Federal Court. The same reasoning applied more strongly to Masoud's further application for Internet, law book and fax access.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeals Against Conviction; Applications Under Federal Court Rules O 52 R 40 for Custody Orders Pending Appeal / Notices of Motion Heard by a Single Judge Before Sentence Had Been Passed in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
['competency of Appeal Before Sentence' 'continuing Custody of Prisoner Pending Appeal' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction' 'orders Affecting Remand or Transfer of Prisoners' 'due Process and Administration of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'custody and Corrections'] ['competency of Appeal Before Sentence' 'continuing Custody of Prisoner Pending Appeal' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction' 'orders Affecting Remand or Transfer of Prisoners' 'due Process and Administration of Justice']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeals Against Conviction; Applications Under Federal Court Rules O 52 R 40 for Custody Orders Pending Appeal / Notices of Motion Heard by a Single Judge Before Sentence Had Been Passed in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had power under Federal Court Rules o 52 r 40 to order that each appellant remain at Belconnen Remand Centre and not be moved interstate pending appeal.' 'Whether a single judge could determine the applications where the competency of the appeals was in doubt because notices of appeal were filed before sentence.' 'Whether the evidence showed a real risk that transfer from Belconnen Remand Centre would deny due process or threaten the administration of justice in the Federal Court.' 'Whether Danny Masoud should be granted access to Internet, law books and faxing facilities in the Belconnen Remand Centre.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motions were dismissed because, even assuming o 52 r 40 could support an order concerning continuing custody, the applicants did not show any real risk that transfer from Belconnen Remand Centre would deny due process, frustrate or impede their appeals, or threaten the administration of justice in the Federal Court. The same reasoning applied more strongly to Masoud's further application for Internet, law book and fax access.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notices of motion dated 6 March and 30 March 2000 and filed in the appeal of Danny Masoud be dismissed.' 'The notice of motion dated 6 March 2000 and filed in the appeal of Viet Dung Tran be dismissed.']