R v Batrachenko No. Sccrm-99-80 Judgment No. S287

Case [1999] SASC 287

R v BATRACHENKO
[1999] SASC 287

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Wicks & Martin JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:       Mr Batrachenko has appealed against conviction and against sentence.  Certain of the grounds upon which he has appealed require leave to appeal.  The single judge before whom the matter came refused leave to appeal against conviction on ground 1 in the notice of appeal.  The judge refused leave to appeal against sentence on grounds 2 and 3. 

  2. By application dated 8 June 1999, the applicant applied to have determined by the Full Court his application for leave to appeal against conviction and against sentence on these grounds.  The application was considered by the Full Court in private pursuant to Rule 15(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules. 

  3. The application was considered by a court comprising Wicks J, Martin J and me. 

  4. In relation to the application for leave to appeal against conviction, ground 1 raises the same matter as is raised by ground 2 in the matter of Lutz.  Accordingly, for the same reasons as in that matter, we are of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused. 

  5. Ground 3 of the application for leave to appeal against sentence raises the same matter as is raised by ground 3 of the application by Lutz for leave to appeal against sentence.  Accordingly, for the same reasons as in that matter, we are of the opinion that leave to appeal on that ground should be granted.

  6. The Court is of the opinion that leave to appeal on ground 2 should be refused.  It has no prospect of success.

  7. Accordingly, in the matter of Batrachenko the order of the court is that leave to appeal against conviction be refused on ground 1 and that leave to appeal against sentence on ground 3 be granted.  Leave to appeal on ground 2 is refused.

  8. WICKS J.          I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice.

  9. MARTIN J.        I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice.

Details
AGLC
R v Batrachenko No. Sccrm-99-80 Judgment No. S287 [1999] SASC 287
Case
[1999] SASC 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Batrachenko, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence before the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia. The Court was comprised of Doyle CJ, Wicks, and Martin JJ. The primary issues for the Court's consideration were the refusal of leave to appeal against the conviction on ground 1 and against the sentence on grounds 2 and 3, as well as the grant of leave to appeal against the sentence on ground 3. The single judge had previously denied leave to appeal on ground 1 regarding the conviction and on grounds 2 and 3 regarding the sentence. Subsequently, the appellant applied for the Full Court to reconsider these decisions.

The Court examined the application for leave to appeal, particularly focusing on whether the grounds presented had a prospect of success. Ground 1 regarding the conviction and ground 2 regarding the sentence were deemed to have no prospect of success, while ground 3 concerning the sentence was found to warrant further examination. The Court referenced the related matter of Lutz to justify its decision, finding that the same issues raised in that matter were applicable here. Therefore, the Court concluded that leave to appeal against the conviction on ground 1 should be refused, while leave to appeal against the sentence on ground 3 should be granted.

The reasoning of the Court was grounded in the precedent set by the Lutz case, which was similarly considered by the Court. The Court found that the arguments presented in grounds 1 and 2 were not likely to succeed, whereas ground 3 provided a valid basis for appeal. The decisions of Wicks and Martin JJ aligned with Doyle CJ, affirming the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court.

The final orders of the Court were that leave to appeal against the conviction on ground 1 should be refused and that leave to appeal against the sentence on ground 3 should be granted. Leave to appeal on ground 2 was also refused. This decision followed the Court's consideration of the application for leave to appeal and the application's alignment with the Lutz case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

WICKS J MARTIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WICKS J, MARTIN J

Full text does not contain this section.