Haydon John Newman v Director of Public Prosecutions

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: Haydon John Newman v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCA 84

HEARING DATE(S): 7 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Bell J at 1; Price J at 1

DECISION: Proceedings dismissed with no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – New South Wales - challenge to jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal – instituted as a precautionary measure

CASES CITED: Newman v R [2007] NSWCCA 103

PARTIES: Haydon John Newman (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40122/07

COUNSEL: M J Ierace; T Evers (Appellant)
D Woodburne (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: P McGhee, Intellectual Disability Rights Service (Appellant)
S Kavanagh, Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0076

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 18 July 2006

- 1 -

CA 40122/07

SPIGELMAN CJ
BELL J
PRICE J
Wednesday 18 April 2007

Haydon John NEWMAN v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ANOR

Judgment

1 THE COURT: These proceedings were instituted as a precautionary measure by reason of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of Newman v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 103. As determined in those proceedings, the challenge to jurisdiction has been rejected.

2 On this basis these precautionary proceedings have proven to be unnecessary.

3 The order of the Court is that the proceedings should be dismissed with no order as to costs.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haydon John Newman (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the respondent). The nature of the dispute involved a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal itself, which the appellant had instituted as a precautionary measure. The appeal was heard by Spigelman CJ, Bell J, and Price J.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether it possessed the necessary jurisdiction to hear the appeal brought by the appellant. This question arose from the appellant's precautionary institution of proceedings, suggesting a potential ambiguity or dispute regarding the proper forum or the validity of the appeal process.

The Court of Criminal Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The reasoning for this conclusion, though not detailed in the provided text, led the Court to dismiss the proceedings.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the proceedings be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Haydon John Newman v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCA 84
HEARING DATE(S):	7 March 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 April 2007
JUDGMENT OF:	Spigelman CJ at 1; Bell J at 1; Price J at 1
DECISION:	Proceedings dismissed with no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – New South Wales - challenge to jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal – instituted as a precautionary measure
CASES CITED:	Newman v R [2007] NSWCCA 103
PARTIES:	Haydon John Newman (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40122/07
COUNSEL:	M J Ierace; T Evers (Appellant) D Woodburne (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	P McGhee, Intellectual Disability Rights Service (Appellant) S Kavanagh, Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0076
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Nicholson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	18 July 2006