Regina v Jefferies - [2000] NSWCCA 81

CITATION: REGINA v JEFFERIES [2000] NSWCCA 81

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60426/98

HEARING DATE(S): 16 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 March 2000

PARTIES :

Trevor Kenneth Jefferies - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA; Hulme J; Dowd J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/31/0391

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Viney DCJ

COUNSEL : G P Craddock - Applicant
C K Maxwell QC - Crown

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

DECISION: 1. That James Barnett, barrister, of 1/332 Pitt Street, Sydney, swear an affidavit setting out his knowledge and belief as to the matters specified in particulars 3 to 7 in the appellant's grounds of appeal in the above appeal, a copy of which will be annexed to the order, and provide such sworn affidavit to the appellant's solicitors before 5 pm on Friday 24 March 2000; 2. That the hearing date of 20 March 2000 be vacated and the appeal stood over for listing before the Registrar at the next available call-over date after 24 March 2000.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60426/98

SHELLER JAJ
HULME J
DOWD J

Thursday, 16 March 2000

REGINA v Trevor Kenneth JEFFERIES

JUDGMENT
1 SHELLER JA: This is an application by the applicant, Trevor Jefferies, in appeal number 60426 of 1998 that the hearing date of 20 March 2000 be vacated. An order was also sought requiring the attendance of a barrister, James Barnett, before the Court.
2 After discussion between the parties the following orders were proposed, which the Court now makes:

1. That James Barnett, barrister, of 1/332 Pitt Street, Sydney, swear an affidavit setting out his knowledge and belief as to the matters specified in particulars 3 to 7 in the appellant's grounds of appeal in the above appeal, a copy of which will be annexed to the order, and provide such sworn affidavit to the appellant's solicitors before 5 pm on Friday 24 March 2000.

2. That the hearing date of 20 March 2000 be vacated and the appeal stood over for listing before the Registrar at the next available call-over date after 24 March 2000.

*****

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Jefferies and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWCCA 81
Decision Date: 16 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor Kenneth Jefferies appealed against a decision of the District Court, presided over by Viney DCJ, and the appeal was heard by Sheller JA, Hulme J, and Dowd J in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Jefferies sought to vacate the hearing date of the appeal and required the attendance of a barrister, James Barnett, before the Court. The Crown did not oppose the application, and the parties reached an agreement on the orders to be made. Jefferies argued that he needed the affidavit of James Barnett to address specific grounds of appeal. The Court accepted the agreement and ordered that James Barnett provide an affidavit to Jefferies' solicitors by a specified date. The Court also vacated the hearing date of the appeal and directed that the appeal be listed for hearing at the next available call-over date after the specified date. This decision ensures that Jefferies has the necessary evidence to proceed with his appeal and that the Court can consider the appeal at an appropriate time.

Orders