R v Sinanovic - [2001] NSWCCA 164

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. SINANOVIC [2001] NSWCCA 164

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60023 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 2 May 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/05/2001

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
SINANOVIC, Hakija

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Crown: A.M. Blackmore, SC.
App: J.C. Papayanni

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Ramrakha Jenkins

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - bail - pending special leave application - necessity for special or exceptional circumstances such as would show special leave application otherwise futile - asserted to be strong - grounds, at best, barely arguable.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Bail Act 1978

DECISION:
Bail refused

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60023 of 1999
CORAM: GREG JAMES, J.
WEDNESDAY 2 MAY 2001

REGINA v. HAKIJA SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT

GREG JAMES, J: Application for bail has been made by Hakija Sinanovic who has made application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal comprising Wood, CJ. at CL., Hulme, J. and myself sitting on appeal from the conviction at his trial before His Honour Judge Maguire in the District Court of New South Wales.
The conviction was in respect of his dishonestly obtaining by deception a ring from a jeweller, Stephen Carturi. Mr. Sinanovic has been involved in a number of matters which went to the Court of Criminal Appeal and which were determined at about the same time. This matter, so I am informed, is the only matter in which he is still serving a non-parole period of a sentence passed upon him. It has been accepted that if the sentence were to be overturned no impediment to his release on parole would exist. It is also accepted that were an order to be made for his release on bail it would be open to him to be paroled to enjoy liberty in accordance with that order.
There is, however, another trial of Mr. Sinanovic on another offence, which is a re-trial in consequence of the Court of Criminal Appeal, similarly constituted, upholding an appeal at about the same time as it reached its decision to which I have referred on appeal from Maguire, DCJ. That matter is listed for re-trial on 14 May, about a fortnight away, but I am assured by the Crown that in the event that bail should be granted for the present matter there would be no objection to bail being granted to the appellant on that matter in consequence of my decision.
The special leave application, although filed, is not yet listed for hearing. That hearing is expected to take place in September or October.
Before me there is evidence from the applicant in particular of his belief as to the circumstances surrounding his conviction and in particular his belief concerning whether or not the ring said to have been obtained by him from the jeweller, was…

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 R v Sinanovic

Details

AGLC: R v Sinanovic [2001] NSWCCA 164
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 164
Decision Date: 2 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Sinanovic, the respondent applied for bail pending a special leave application to the High Court. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent had demonstrated the requisite special or exceptional circumstances to justify his release on bail while awaiting the outcome of the special leave application.

The respondent contended that the appeal had a strong chance of success, and therefore, bail should be granted. However, the court noted that the grounds for the appeal, at best, were barely arguable. The court held that to warrant the grant of bail in these circumstances, there must be an exceptional situation where it would be otherwise futile to proceed with the special leave application. The respondent had failed to meet this threshold, and thus, the application for bail was dismissed. The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the respondent's right to liberty with the interests of justice and the potential impact of the appeal on the legal system.

The court ordered that the respondent remain in custody pending the determination of the special leave application. The reasoning for this decision was based on the principle that bail should not be granted if it would undermine the administration of justice or if the appeal's potential success is uncertain. The court concluded that the respondent had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant a departure from this principle, and therefore, the application for bail was refused.

Orders