Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Clark v R (No 4) [2021] NSWCCA 67 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 14 April 2021 Decision date: 14 April 2021 Before: Payne JA; Johnson J; Wilson J Decision: (1) Leave to apply to set aside the orders of the Court under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules is refused;
(2) The notice of motion dated 12 April 2021 is dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – leave to apply to set aside judgments and orders – further vexatious application – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 50C
Cases Cited: Category: Consequential orders Parties: Peter Frederick Clark (Applicant) Representation: Applicant in person
File Number(s): 2008/3811 Publication restriction: Nil.
Judgment
-
THE COURT: On 12 April 2021, Mr Clark filed a notice of motion seeking orders under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW). This is the third application made by Mr Clark under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules seeking, inter alia, orders setting aside the judgment in Clark v R [2021] NSWCCA 8.
-
For the reasons given in Clark v R(No 2) [2021] NSWCCA 48 and Clark v R (No 3) [2021] NSWCCA 64 the application is vexatious and must be dismissed. The orders of the Court are:
Leave to apply to set aside the orders of the Court under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules is refused;
The notice of motion dated 12 April 2021 is dismissed.
**********
- AGLC
- Clark v The Queen (No 4) [2021] NSWCCA 67
- Case
- [2021] NSWCCA 67
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether Clark's application was a further vexatious application and whether there was an issue of principle that required the Court to grant leave to apply to set aside the judgments and orders. The Court considered whether Clark's application was an abuse of process, whether it was frivolous or vexatious, and whether there was an issue of principle that required the Court to grant leave.
The Court held that Clark's application was a further vexatious application and that there was no issue of principle that required the Court to grant leave to apply to set aside the judgments and orders. The Court noted that Clark had made numerous previous applications to set aside judgments and orders, which had all been dismissed as frivolous or vexatious. The Court also noted that Clark had not identified any new evidence or argument that could potentially overturn the previous judgments and orders. The Court held that the application was an abuse of process and that there was no issue of principle that required the Court to grant leave.
The Court dismissed Clark's application and held that there were no orders to be made. The Court noted that Clark had a right to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal, but that the Court was not satisfied that there was any prospect of success in such an appeal. The Court held that the application was vexatious and that there was no issue of principle that required the Court to grant leave to apply to set aside the judgments and orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.