Legal Research
Cases
PFC v R (No 2)

PFC v R (No 2)

Case [2014] NSWCCA 241 30 October 2014

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Misapprehension of Law

Res Judicata

Specific Performance

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: PFC v R (No.2) [2014] NSWCCA 241
Hearing dates: 23/10/2014
Decision date: 30 October 2014
Before: Fullerton J
R A Hulme J
Garling J
Decision:
Application pursuant to Rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules to vary the orders entered by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 15 December 2011 dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - procedure - reconstitution of the Court; application for - apprehended bias, whether - remarks in case management hearing - lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question being decided, whether - no apprehended bias CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - procedure - leave to vary orders of Court of Criminal Appeal; application for - Criminal Appeal Rules; Rule 50C -- whether Court proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law - misapprehensions of law - fraud exception to finality of litigation, whether - access to documents - no misapprehension of law - misapprehension of Court of Criminal Appeal in considering whether the convictions were unsafe or unsatisfactory, whether - misapplication of the principles in SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400, whether - correct application - misapprehensions of fact - multiple documents - not tendered at trial - not put before Court as fresh evidence - no misapprehension of any fact on material before the Court - attempt to reargue unsuccessful appeal - representation at trial - dealt with comprehensively by Court of Criminal Appeal - attempt to reargue unsuccessful appeal
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Achurch v The Queen [2014] HCA 10, (2014) 88 ALJR 490
Akkawi v R (No.2) [2013] NSWCCA 72
Alramadan v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No.2) [2008] NSWCCA 69
Baghdadi v R (No. 2) [2012] NSWCCA 77
Burrell v The Queen [2008] HCA 34; (2008) 238 CLR 218
DJL v The Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; (2000) 201 CLR 226
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Kauwenberghs v R [2009] NSWCCA 201
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427
PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275
R v AB (No.2) [2011] NSWCCA 256
Regina v PFC [2011] NSWCCA 117.
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: PFC (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
Ms N Williams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Directors of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/3811069
Publication restriction: Suppression of Applicant's Name
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9004

Citation:

PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275

Date of Decision:

2011-12-15 00:00:00

Before:

Giles JA
Hoeben J
Hall J

File Number(s):

2008/3811069

Judgment

THE COURT: On 19 June 2009, after a trial before Norrish DCJ and a jury, on an indictment containing 29 counts, the…

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 PFC v R (No 2)

Details

AGLC: PFC v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 241
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 241
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, PFC, against the respondent, the Crown. The dispute centred on the appellant's challenge to his criminal convictions and the subsequent appeal process. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought reconstitution of the Court, arguing that remarks made by a judge during a case management hearing could be perceived as biased by a lay observer. Additionally, the appellant applied for leave to vary orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal, contending that the Court had proceeded on a misapprehension of fact or law.

The court examined whether the judge's remarks constituted apprehended bias. The court held that a lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question being decided. Therefore, there was no apprehended bias. Regarding the application for leave to vary orders, the court found no misapprehension of law by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court also determined that there was no misapplication of the principles in SKA v The Queen in the original appeal decision. The court concluded that the appellant was attempting to reargue an unsuccessful appeal and that the misapprehension of fact relied upon was not material before the Court. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's final orders were to dismiss the appellant's appeal, with no orders as to costs. The High Court confirmed that the original decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal stood affirmed.

Orders