Sasterawan v Morris

The appellant, Sasterawan, sought leave to appeal against the interlocutory orders made in the District Court that granted the prosecutor an adjournment of the hearing and allowed evidence to be called by videolink. The orders were made in relation to a conviction in the Local Court on two counts of an offence under section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900. Sasterawan argued that the District Court erred in making these orders and that they deprived him of a fair hearing. The appeal was heard in the District Court, and the primary judge refused leave to appeal and dismissed the application for costs. Sasterawan sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the District Court erred in granting the prosecutor an adjournment and allowing evidence to be called by videolink, and whether the appellant was entitled to leave to appeal and costs. The Court considered the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 5F and 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which govern appeals from the District Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court also considered the common law principles relating to the grant of adjournments and the admissibility of evidence by videolink.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the District Court did not err in granting the prosecutor an adjournment and allowing evidence to be called by videolink. The Court found that the District Court had considered the relevant factors and exercised its discretion reasonably. The Court also held that the appellant was not entitled to leave to appeal or costs. The Court found that the District Court's decision was not so plainly wrong as to justify interference by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated that the orders made by the District Court had deprived him of a fair hearing or that they were an abuse of process. The Court further held that the appellant had not shown that the District Court had committed a substantial injustice in refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the application for costs.

No further orders were made by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.