AK v The King

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AK v R [2025] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 23 May 2025
Decision date: 23 May 2025
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:
No basis to make an order that differs from that made by the Registrar on 24 April 2025. Decline to make an order for access to the nominated transcripts.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – review of procedural decisions of Registrar – where applicant filed notice of motion seeking extension of time to file notice of appeal – extension refused by Registrar – where applicant filed notice of motion seeking access to unedited transcript – no demonstration why transcripts were required – application refused

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: AK (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Costello (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/371978
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: By notices of motion dated 23 April 2025, the applicant seeks access to the unedited transcript of his trial in the District Court and the sentencing proceedings, as well as an extension of time until 28 February 2025 for the filing of a Notice of Appeal.
The applicant’s request for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal was refused by the Registrar at a call-over on 24 April 2025. The Registrar was of the view, correctly in my estimation, that the issue of whether to grant the extension should be decided at the hearing of the appeal. That appeal is currently listed for 16 June 2025. The applicant’s position is adequately protected in this respect and he can revive his application when the matter is before the Court of Criminal Appeal in June.
With respect to the transcripts, the applicant has not demonstrated why these transcripts are required in some fashion other than as part of the Court Book to be prepared for the appeal. To the extent that the applicant contends that material upon which he wishes to rely is not included in the appeal papers, he should draw that to the attention of the court at that time.
I confirm that there is no basis to make an order that differs in any respect from that made by the Registrar on 24 April 2025. I decline to make an order for access to the nominated transcripts.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In AK v The King, the applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by a Registrar in relation to an appeal process. The applicant had initially filed a notice of motion requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, which was refused by the Registrar. Subsequently, the applicant filed another notice of motion seeking access to unedited transcripts, arguing that these were necessary for the appeal. The Registrar again refused this application, citing a lack of demonstration as to why the transcripts were required. The applicant then sought judicial review of the Registrar's decisions. The central legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar had exercised their discretion appropriately in denying the requests and whether there was any jurisdictional error in the Registrar's decisions.

The court examined the nature of the Registrar's discretion in denying the requests and found that the Registrar had not acted beyond the scope of their authority. The court held that the Registrar's decision to deny the extension of time to file a notice of appeal was within the permissible bounds of discretion, as the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. Similarly, the court concluded that the refusal to grant access to unedited transcripts was justified, as the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the necessity of such transcripts for the appeal. The court found no jurisdictional error in the Registrar's decisions, as the decisions were based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors and were not irrational or arbitrary.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for judicial review. The court confirmed that the Registrar's decisions were reasonable and within their discretion, and therefore, the applicant's requests were appropriately denied. The court did not find any grounds for interference with the Registrar's procedural decisions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	AK v R [2025] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	23 May 2025
Decision date:	23 May 2025
Before:	Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:	No basis to make an order that differs from that made by the Registrar on 24 April 2025. Decline to make an order for access to the nominated transcripts.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – review of procedural decisions of Registrar – where applicant filed notice of motion seeking extension of time to file notice of appeal – extension refused by Registrar – where applicant filed notice of motion seeking access to unedited transcript – no demonstration why transcripts were required – application refused
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	AK (Applicant) Rex (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: B Costello (Respondent) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/371978
Publication restriction:	Nil