Regina v Shalala [2002] NSWCCA 461

Regina v Shalala [2002] NSWCCA 461

Mr Watson's attendance was necessary because the Crown relied on his affidavit and the applicant wished to cross-examine him. Mr Sukkar's production was necessary because the applicant relied on his evidence and the Crown wished to cross-examine him. Messrs Goold, Wilkinson and Steirn SC were not required to attend because Mr Goold had no relevant knowledge, Mr Wilkinson and Mr Steirn SC had no relevant recollection, the committal transcript showed how the committal was conducted, and their evidence would have no real bearing on allegations of professional incompetence against trial counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Orders Requiring Attendance or Production of Legal Representatives at the Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application in relation to Messrs Wilkinson, Goold and Steirn SC dismissed; application in relation to Messrs Watson and Sukkar allowed.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'alleged Incompetent Legal Representation at Trial' 'attendance of Witnesses on Appeal' 'production of Person in Custody' 'drug Supply']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['conviction Appeal' 'alleged Incompetent Legal Representation at Trial' 'attendance of Witnesses on Appeal' 'production of Person in Custody' 'drug Supply']

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 Conviction Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Orders Requiring Attendance or Production of Legal Representatives at the Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Watson should be ordered to attend the appeal hearing for examination in relation to matters relevant to the appeal.' 'Whether Mr Sukkar, who was in custody, should be produced for examination before the Court at the appeal hearing.' 'Whether Messrs Goold, Wilkinson and Steirn SC should be required to attend the appeal hearing to give evidence concerning the committal proceedings and instructions allegedly given by the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Watson's attendance was necessary because the Crown relied on his affidavit and the applicant wished to cross-examine him. Mr Sukkar's production was necessary because the applicant relied on his evidence and the Crown wished to cross-examine him. Messrs Goold, Wilkinson and Steirn SC were not required to attend because Mr Goold had no relevant knowledge, Mr Wilkinson and Mr Steirn SC had no relevant recollection, the committal transcript showed how the committal was conducted, and their evidence would have no real bearing on allegations of professional incompetence against trial counsel.

Court Disposition

Application in relation to Messrs Wilkinson, Goold and Steirn SC dismissed; application in relation to Messrs Watson and Sukkar allowed.

Orders

  • ['Mr Christopher Watson of counsel is ordered under s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to attend before the Court on 2 December 2002 to be examined in relation to matters on which he will give evidence relevant to the appeal.' 'Mr Stephen Sukkar is to be produced at the Court on 2 December 2002 pursuant to s 77 of...