R v Chan; R v Jun [2014] NSWDC 43
The application for adjournment was granted because the offender Chan's counsel was unavailable, replacement counsel and solicitor were unprepared, and justice would not be served by proceeding without proper representation. Joint proceedings are important to ensure consistent findings for co-offenders.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Adjournment Before Sentencing
- Outcome
- Application for adjournment granted
- Legal Topics
- ['application for Adjournment' 'joint Sentence Proceedings' 'counsel Unavailability' 'court Efficiency' 'referral of Practitioner Conduct']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Adjournment Before Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an adjournment should be granted where counsel for one offender is unavailable' 'Whether sentence proceedings for co-offenders should be held jointly' "Implications of legal practitioners' conduct on court efficiency"]
Ratio Decidendi
The application for adjournment was granted because the offender Chan's counsel was unavailable, replacement counsel and solicitor were unprepared, and justice would not be served by proceeding without proper representation. Joint proceedings are important to ensure consistent findings for co-offenders.
Court Disposition
Application for adjournment granted
Orders
- ['Matter to be relisted for sentencing at a later date' 'Copy of judgment to be sent to the Bar Association and Law Society of New South Wales for investigation into legal practitioner conduct']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment