Adam James Lee v Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) and Anor [2007] NSWCA 51

Adam James Lee v Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) and Anor [2007] NSWCA 51

Leave to appeal was refused because Howie J was plainly right that the magistrate's reasons disclosed questions of law and errors: the magistrate applied a no case to answer or prima facie case test when there was such a case, and treated the Claimant's participation in the switching of bodies as an essential component of the prosecution case when it was not. Howie J's decision to remit the matter for a further trial under s 59(2) was open and no relevant error in the exercise of discretion was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a Judgment of Howie J
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal From a Magistrate' 'question of Law Alone' 'no Case to Answer' 'prima Facie Case' 'remittal for Further Trial' 'costs' "suitors' Fund Certificate"]
['criminal Law' 'appeals' 'practice and Procedure'] ['appeal From a Magistrate' 'question of Law Alone' 'no Case to Answer' 'prima Facie Case' 'remittal for Further Trial' 'costs' "suitors' Fund Certificate"]

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From a Judgment of Howie J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Howie J erred in determining that there was a question of law alone under s 56 of the Crimes (Appeal & Review) Act 2001.' 'Whether Howie J erred in determining that the magistrate committed errors by applying a no case to answer or prima facie case test.' "Whether the magistrate erred by treating the Claimant's participation in the switching of bodies as an essential part of the prosecution case." 'Whether Howie J erred in exercising discretion under s 59(2) of the Crimes (Appeal & Review) Act 2001 to remit the matter for a further trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Howie J was plainly right that the magistrate's reasons disclosed questions of law and errors: the magistrate applied a no case to answer or prima facie case test when there was such a case, and treated the Claimant's participation in the switching of bodies as an essential component of the prosecution case when it was not. Howie J's decision to remit the matter for a further trial under s 59(2) was open and no relevant error in the exercise of discretion was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' "The Claimant pay the Opponent's costs of the appeal." "The Claimant to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act if otherwise entitled."]