The court held that To determine whether a fair
hearing has been conducted or that there was a
violation of the right to a fair hearing, the
proceedings must first be completed, that is to
say; the prosecution and defense must conclude
their cases and the Court makes a decision on
the matter.
The matters complained of were neither
determined nor sentences therefore prescribed
by law. A finding by the trial Court of a case to
answer can only be challenged in the appellate
Court. It does not require constitutional
interpretation. In this case, if the petitioner was
aggrieved by the order, he was free to apply for
its review. There was nothing unconstitutional
in the Court making that order of restriction
pending the completion of the petitioner's trial.