Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2) - [2022] NSWCCA 231

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 231
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 26 October 2022
Decision date: 26 October 2022
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Decision:
Application for review of the Registrar’s decision dismissed

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – application for review of Registrar’s refusal to make orders under s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – appeal pending – applicant seeks orders for production of documents, “information”, and further statements – such orders must be in the “interests of justice” – must relate to grounds of appeal – necessity for such orders to be narrow in scope

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021(NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dedeogluv R [2022] NSWCCA 74
Re Application by Dedeoglu [2022] NSWCCA 192
Xie v R [2021] NSWCCA 1

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Onur Dedeoglu (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/263370

JUDGMENT

By a letter filed 27 June 2022, Onur Dedeoglu seeks review under r 6.1 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) (the “Criminal Appeal Rules”) of various decisions of the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal refusing to make orders under s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The power to review such decisions can be exercised by a “Judge of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice in the same manner as they may be exercised by the court, and subject to the same provisions” (Criminal Appeal Act, s 22(1)). The Chief Justice has designated all judges of the Common Law Division as having that power (and the other powers listed in s 22). For the reasons that follow the application for review will be dismissed.

Background

On 20 February 2020 Mr Dedeoglu was convicted, after a trial by jury, of two counts of indecent assault in contravention of s 61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of sexual intercourse without consent in contravention of s 61I. The offending of which he was found guilty involved an attack by Mr Dedeoglu, a driver for a ride-sharing service, upon a sleeping 17-year-old girl whom he had been retained to drive home.
On 7 April 2020, her Honour Judge Noman SC sentenced Mr Dedeoglu to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months with a non‑parole period of 6 years to start from the day of his arrest, 2 April 2019.
On the same day Mr Dedeoglu filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal against conviction and sentence.
He sought and obtained an extension to that notice on 6 November 2020 to 12 February 2021. On 8 February 2021, he was granted a further extension to 12 May 2021.
On 16 June 2021, Mr Dedeoglu filed a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal. He re-filed that application with further grounds and written submissions on 29 July 2021.
On…

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 Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 231
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 231
Decision Date: 26 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was brought by Dedeoglu, an appellant in a criminal matter, against the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant sought to compel the production of documents, information, and further statements from the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the course of an ongoing appeal. The Registrar had previously refused to make the orders sought, and the applicant sought a review of that decision. The application was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to consider whether the orders sought were necessary in the interests of justice and whether they were narrowly tailored to the grounds of appeal.

The legal issues before the court centred on the scope and application of section 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), which allows the Court of Criminal Appeal to make certain orders in relation to the production of documents, information, and further statements in the course of an appeal. The applicant argued that the orders were necessary in the interests of justice and were directly related to the grounds of appeal. The court had to determine whether the applicant's arguments were sufficient to warrant a departure from the Registrar's decision and whether the orders sought were appropriate in scope and nature.

The court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the making of the orders sought. It found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the documents, information, and statements were necessary in the interests of justice or that they were directly related to the grounds of appeal. The court emphasised that any orders made under section 12 must be narrowly tailored to the specific needs of the appeal and must not be overly broad or general in scope. The court concluded that the applicant had not made out a case for the making of the orders sought, and the Registrar's decision was upheld.

The court dismissed the application for review and made no orders in relation to the applicant's request for the production of documents, information, and further statements. The court noted that the applicant remained free to raise any relevant issues in the course of the ongoing appeal and that the orders sought could be revisited if appropriate at that time.

Orders