R v Ngo [2001] NSWSC 887

R v Ngo [2001] NSWSC 887

The adjournment was refused because, although the matter was very serious and the prisoner should have the best available counsel, Mr Hoenig was not available and refusal would not leave the prisoner without adequate or competent representation; Mr Pearsall had appeared throughout the trial and was an experienced and competent criminal counsel, so there was no risk of injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings After Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings' 'counsel Unavailable' 'representation of Prisoner']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings' 'counsel Unavailable' 'representation of Prisoner']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings After Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentencing proceedings should be adjourned because counsel briefed for the prisoner was unavailable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because, although the matter was very serious and the prisoner should have the best available counsel, Mr Hoenig was not available and refusal would not leave the prisoner without adequate or competent representation; Mr Pearsall had appeared throughout the trial and was an experienced and competent criminal counsel, so there was no risk of injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for adjournment is refused.' 'The submissions on sentence will proceed on Friday.']