Legal Research
Cases
Dickson v R (No 2)

Dickson v R (No 2)

Case [2018] NSWCCA 183 27 August 2018

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: Dickson v R (No 2) [2018] NSWCCA 183
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 27 August 2018
Decision date: 27 August 2018
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Schmidt J at [15];
Wilson J at [16]
Decision:
Application dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction and sentence – appeal heard and determined – no reference in judgment to one ground of appeal against conviction – applicant seeks to submit further grounds of appeal and have “undetermined” ground considered – applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence – sentence previously quashed by Court – question of power to reconsider appeal – no power to hear further grounds
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6
Criminal Appeal Rules 1912 (NSW), rr 25A, 50C
Cases Cited: Achurch v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 141; [2014] HCA 10
Alramadan v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2008] NSWCCA 69
AN (No 2) (2006) 66 NSWLR 523; [2006] NSWCCA 218
Application of Malcolm Potier (No 3) [2015] NSWCCA 306
Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529; [1971] HCA 49
Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65
Burrell v The Queen (2008) 238 CLR 218; [2008] HCA 34
DAO v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 126
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Dickson v The Queen [2016] HCATrans 307
Elliott v The Queen [2007] HCA 51; (2007) 82 ALJR 82
Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45
Haidari v The Queen [2014] VSCA 91
Langelaar v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 228
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 205
R v AN (No 2) (2006) 66 NSWLR 523; [2006] NSWCCA 218
R v Burrell [2007] NSWCCA 79
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Anthony James Dickson (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented Applicant
Mr MG McHugh SC with Mr B Narula (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Self-represented Applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/140639
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Citation:

R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268

Date of Decision:

20 March 2015

Before:

Beech-Jones J

File Number(s):

2012/140639

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: The Court delivered its judgment on the appeal and cross-appeal in this matter on 10 June 2016 ([2016] NSWCCA 105). The Court dismissed Mr Dickson’s appeal against conviction and allowed the Crown’s appeal against sentence. The Court accordingly re-sentenced Mr Dickson. Its orders were entered on 10 June 2016.
On 30 June 2016 Mr Dickson applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the judgment. His proposed fifth ground of appeal alleged that this Court “erred in failing to determine Amended Ground 7, for which leave to amend had been granted at the hearing of the appeal”. The High Court refused the application on 16 December 2016.
By Notice of Motion dated 20 November 2017,…

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 Dickson v R (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Dickson v The Queen (No 2) [2018] NSWCCA 183
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 183
Decision Date: 27 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dickson v R (No 2) involved the applicant appealing against both his conviction and sentence. The applicant's initial appeal against conviction and sentence was heard and determined by the court. The applicant sought to submit further grounds of appeal and have an "undetermined" ground considered, which was not referenced in the judgment. Additionally, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, which had previously been quashed by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the court had the power to consider additional grounds of appeal that were not addressed in the initial judgment, and whether the court had the power to reconsider the sentence that had already been quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court held that it did not have the power to hear further grounds of appeal or reconsider the sentence, as the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal.

The court reasoned that once an appeal had been heard and determined, the court did not have the power to reconsider the appeal. The court held that it did not have the power to hear further grounds of appeal or reconsider the sentence, as the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal. The court also held that it did not have the power to reconsider the sentence, as it had already been quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court's decision was based on the principle that once a matter has been determined by a court, it cannot be reconsidered by the same court.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed. The court held that it did not have the power to hear further grounds of appeal or reconsider the sentence, as the matter had already been determined by the Court of Appeal. The court's decision was based on the principle that once a matter has been determined by a court, it cannot be reconsidered by the same court.

Orders