R v Pierre Tabar
[2006] NSWCCA 139
•20 March 2006
NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION: R v Pierre Tabar [2006] NSWCCA 139
FILE NUMBER(S):
60098/04
HEARING DATE(S): 20/03/06
DECISION DATE: 20/03/2006
EX TEMPORE DATE: 20/03/2006
PARTIES:
Crown: D Woodburne
Applicant: In person
JUDGMENT OF: Adams J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable
COUNSEL:
Crown: D Woodburne
Applicant: In person
SOLICITORS:
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION CITED:
DECISION:
Application for adjournement refused.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60098/04
ADAMS J
MONDAY 20 MARCH 2006
REGINA v PIERRE TABAR
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Pierre Tabar, who seeks to withdraw his abandonment of an appeal against conviction for an offence in respect of which he pleaded guilty on 5 May 2003.
The transcript sufficiently sets out the chronology of events. The records show that repeated communications from the Registrar have required Mr Tabar to produce material upon which he seeks to rely for the purposes of his appeal against conviction and to obtain leave to withdraw his notice of abandonment. Of particular significance is the indication to Mr Tabar by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 9 November 2004 that he would have a "last opportunity" to provide material upon which he relied for the purpose of appealing against his conviction. Since that time and despite continuous reminders he has provided nothing.
This matter was, in the result, set down for hearing in November last year, confirmed on-call over on 2 February 2006 for 27 March next. Despite not having provided at any stage any material justifying either his withdrawal of his notice of abandonment of conviction or the fresh evidence upon which he says he relies in respect of his conviction, the applicant has not provided any material and, furthermore, has indicated to me that he is not in a position to provide any further material.
The applicant seeks to adjourn the hearing of his appeal upon the ground that he has instructed a solicitor, a Mr Peter Murphy of Pitt Street, Sydney to procure, the services of a private investigator to investigate the background of the victim of the crime to which something less than three years ago he pleaded guilty.
The Crown has sought to enquire from Mr Murphy whether he is, indeed, retained by Mr Tabar and what, if anything, is being done about any investigations. Mr Murphy has informed the solicitor for the DPP that, although Mr Tabar has written to him, he has not responded and has taken no action and made no communication which would justify Mr Tabar thinking that he, Mr Murphy, has been retained.
Mr Tabar, in substance, has agreed with this description of events. He also has informed me that he has heard nothing from Mr Murphy. He has said that he hoped Mr Murphy would come to see him this afternoon.
It is clear that no steps to retain a private investigator have been undertaken. It is also clear that this application is nothing but an attempt by the applicant to delay the hearing and determination of his application in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Crown has obtained orders for the attendance of three legal practitioners and the attendance of the victim, Ms Karam. Since the applicant is well aware of his instructions to his solicitors, there is no reason why either he or someone instructed by him cannot cross-examine those persons. Ms Karam will also be available for cross-examination.
The applicant has made allegations about the detectives in the case and has said that Ms Karam has withdrawn her allegations against him. Having regard to his plea of guilty it is a little difficult to see how material any of the allegations made by the applicant are either to his conviction or to the propriety of his notice of abandonment of his conviction appeal.
The application for adjournment is refused.
**********
LAST UPDATED: 27/04/2006
0
0
0