Bryce v Regina

Case •

[2005] NSWCCA 462

•

2 December 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.
CITATION:

Bryce v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 462
HEARING DATE(S): 2 December 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


2 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Grove J at 1; Sully J at 8; Howie J at 9
DECISION:

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL LODGED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT BY LEGAL AID - APPELLANT ESCAPES FROM CUSTODY AND IS AT LARGE - LEGAL AID WITHDRAWN - NO APPEARANCE OF APPELLANT
PARTIES:

John Keith Bryce v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S):

CCA 2005/1351
SOLICITORS:

S. Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

04/11/0369; 04/11/0374

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

Kinchington DCJ


                          2005/1351

                          GROVE J
                          SULLY J
                          HOWIE J

                          2 December 2005
      JOHN KEITH BRYCE v REGINA
Judgment

1 GROVE J: Upon call for John Keith Bryce he does not appear.

2 On 11 July 2005 an application for leave to appeal was filed in this Court against the sentence imposed by Kinchington DCJ at Sydney District Court on 23 July 2004 relating to two charges of possess housebreaking implements and a charge of break and enter with intent.

3 The appeal was filed by the Legal Aid Commission on behalf of the applicant. The matter was listed for callover on 4 August 2005 when the Legal Aid Commission advised that the applicant had escaped from custody. The matter was stood over for further mention on 15 September 2005 and on that date was again stood over until 27 October 2005.

4 On 27 October 2005 the Legal Aid Commission withdrew from the matter. The matter was then listed before the Court on 2 December 2005, that is today.

5 Enquiries made on 28 November 2005 to the sentencing administration section of the Department of Corrective Services revealed that the applicant was not in custody as at that date and he had escaped on 11 July 2005. No notification of listing of this matter before the Court today has been sent to the applicant because the Registry is unaware of his current address, given the information that he has escaped from lawful custody.

6 Nevertheless, in the circumstances the matter is put before the Court to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

7 I propose that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.

8 SULLY J: I agree.

9 HOWIE J: I agree.

10 GROVE J: The order of the Court therefore will be as I have proposed.


**********
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0