Beazley P at [1]; McColl JA at [122]; Emmett JA at [1]
Decision:
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
JURISDICTION - Court of Appeal - Supreme Court Act 1970, s 17 - Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal from decision under Costs in Criminal Cases Act - Whether interlocutory order is part of proceedings
JURISDICTION - Court of Criminal Appeal - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F - Whether Court of Criminal Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeal from decision under Costs in Criminal Cases Act - Whether decision under Costs in Criminal Cases Act is interlocutory
PRIVILEGE - client legal privilege - applicability of Evidence Act 1995, ss 118 and 119 - where evidence not adduced
PRIVILEGE - client legal privilege - waiver - imputed waiver - whether conduct was plainly inconsistent with maintenance of confidentiality
AGENCY - implied or apparent authority - whether authority to compromise proceedings carried authority to waive privilege
[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 El-Zayet v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
El-Zayet v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 298
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 298
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the Court of Appeal was brought by the respondent, the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal had found that the appellant, El-Zayet, was not liable for certain costs incurred by the Crown in connection with his criminal trial. The primary legal issues were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, and if the decision was interlocutory in nature. Additionally, the court examined whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and if the decision was interlocutory.
The court first considered the jurisdictional issues, determining that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The court found that the decision was interlocutory and did not constitute a final determination of the costs issue. The court also determined that the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the decision was indeed interlocutory. Regarding the privilege issues, the court found that the appellant had not waived his client legal privilege as there was no conduct that was plainly inconsistent with the maintenance of confidentiality. The court concluded that there was no implied or apparent authority to waive privilege.
The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in relation to the interlocutory decision. The court held that the decision was not a final order and, as such, the appeal was not receivable by the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was upheld.