Legal Research
Cases
Cranston v The Queen

Cranston v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 143 30 June 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cranston v R [2020] NSWCCA 143
Hearing dates: 22 June 2020
Date of orders: 22 June 2020
Decision date: 30 June 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Wilson J at [76]
N Adams J at [78]
Decision:
1. Extend time for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal under s.5F(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 until 10 June 2020.
2. Grant the Applicant leave to appeal under s.5F(3).
3. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal under s.5F Criminal Appeal Act 1912 from refusal of Dietrich stay - applicant charged with tax fraud and money laundering - complex and lengthy trial - applicant failed to establish that he was indigent - whether error demonstrated in findings of primary Judge - no error demonstrated - whether interests of justice warranted - grant of leave to appeal - observations made concerning absence of provisions in Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth) permitting release of restrained assets to fund a person’s defence - contrast with State confiscation legislation - leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW)
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Calleija v R (2012) 233 A Crim R 391; [2012] NSWCCA 37
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Munshizada v R [2020] NSWCCA 9
R v Cox [1999] NSWCCA 229
R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469
R v Macdonald (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 486
R v Matovski (1989) 15 NSWLR 720
State of New South Wales v Canellis (1994) 181 CLR 309; [1994] HCA 51
Steffan v R (1993) 30 NSWLR 633
TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Cranston (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Ayache, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr R Maidment QC; Ms L R Vujcic (Respondent)
Solicitors:
One Group Legal (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/148697
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Citation:

R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469

Date of Decision:

01 May 2020

Before:

Beech-Jones J

File Number(s):

2017/148697

Judgment

JOHNSON J: By Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal filed on 10 June 2020, the Applicant, Adam Cranston, applied for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory order made by Beech-Jones J on 1 May 2020 dismissing his application to stay criminal proceedings in accordance with the principles in Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57 (“Dietrich”): R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469.
At the conclusion of the hearing before this Court on 22 June 2020, the Court made the following orders:

extend time for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal under…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cranston v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cranston v R (Restore Catchwords When Publishing See Publication Restriction Field) [2020] NSWCCA 143
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 143
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cranston v The Queen involved an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of a stay of proceedings in relation to charges of tax fraud and money laundering. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, which had refused an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The applicant contended that the refusal of the stay was an error of law that warranted the grant of leave to appeal, particularly in light of the complexity and length of the trial ahead.

The central legal issue was whether the primary judge had erred in his findings regarding the applicant's indigence and whether the interests of justice warranted the grant of leave to appeal. The court examined whether the applicant had demonstrated an error in the primary judge's findings and if the refusal of the stay was such a significant error that it justified an appeal to the High Court. Additionally, the court made observations about the absence of provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) that would allow the release of restrained assets to fund a person's defence, contrasting this with similar provisions in state legislation.

The court found that no error had been demonstrated in the primary judge's findings, and the refusal of the stay did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal. However, the court granted leave to appeal, noting the potential unfairness in the current legislative framework. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, but the observations concerning the legislative provisions were highlighted for potential reform. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants in complex criminal cases have adequate resources to mount a proper defence, even in cases involving significant financial crimes.

Orders