Hall v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 298 30 November 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Hall v R [2015] NSWCCA 298
Hearing dates: 20 November 2015
Decision date: 30 November 2015
Before: Simpson JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Davies J at [66]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused upon the basis that the application is incompetent.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave under s.5F Criminal Appeal Act to appeal against decision of a Magistrate - Applicant charged with a number of offences, including Table 1 and Table 2 offences - prosecution elected to have charges proceed on indictment - election not made within time allowed under s. 263(1) Criminal Procedure Act - Magistrate granted leave to prosecution under s. 263(2) to elect out of time for charges to proceed on indictment - whether application for leave to appeal under s. 5F competent - Magistrate’s decision not made during committal proceedings and was not an “interlocutory judgment or order” - application for leave not competent - consideration of proper construction and application of s. 263(2) - application refused
WORDS AND PHRASES - “special circumstances” - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 263(2)
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Interpretation Act 1987
Local Court Act 2007
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: AF v R [2015] NSWCCA 35
Attorney General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 66; 182 A Crim R 536
Attorney General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667
B v Gould (1993) 67 A Crim R 297
D (A Child) v White (1988) VR 87
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hall [2015] NSWLC 12
Expile Pty Limited v Jabb’s Excavation Pty Limited [2002] NSWSC 851; 194 ALR 138
Hall v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWSC 839
Iqbal v R [2012] NSWCCA 72
R v Colby; R v Kennedy (1995) 84 A Crim R 125
R v O’Meara [2001] NSWCCA 340
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
Salter v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2009] NSWCA 357; 75 NSWLR 392
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Chamberlain [2002] FCA 67
Tez v Longley [2004] NSWSC 74; 142 A Crim R 122
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jason Daniel Hall (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms A Hawkins (Applicant)
Mr J Pickering SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Blair Criminal Lawyers Pty Limited (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/1939422014/2258352014/227636
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hall [2015] NSWLC 12

Date of Decision:

05 August 2015

Before:

Crompton LCM

File Number(s):

2014/227636

Judgment

SIMPSON JA: I agree with Johnson J.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Jason Daniel Hall, seeks leave to appeal under s.5F Criminal Appeal Act 1912 with respect…

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 Hall v R

Details

AGLC: Hall v R [2015] NSWCCA 298
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 298
Decision Date: 30 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hall, sought leave to appeal against the decision of a magistrate who granted the prosecution leave to elect charges to proceed on indictment, despite the election not being made within the time allowed under section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The applicant was charged with multiple offences, including Table 1 and Table 2 offences, and the prosecution elected to proceed on indictment. However, the election was not made within the prescribed timeframe, and the magistrate granted leave under section 263(2) for the prosecution to elect out of time. The applicant applied for leave to appeal the magistrate's decision under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to appeal was competent. The court had to consider whether the magistrate's decision was an "interlocutory judgment or order" within the meaning of section 5F(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act and whether the decision involved "special circumstances" under section 263(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The applicant argued that the magistrate's decision was appealable as it was an interlocutory judgment or order and involved special circumstances. The court needed to determine the proper construction and application of section 263(2) and whether the magistrate's decision fell within the scope of section 5F.

The court held that the magistrate's decision was not an interlocutory judgment or order, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was not competent. The court found that the magistrate's decision was made after the committal proceedings and did not involve an interlocutory judgment or order. The court also held that the magistrate's decision did not involve special circumstances as defined in section 263(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal was not competent, and therefore, the application was refused. The court did not provide any further orders in the judgment.

Orders