PEYTON & ANOR v NOBBS & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 43

PEYTON & ANOR v NOBBS & ANOR [2000] NSWSC 43

The magistrate's ruling that certain informations were duplicitous might weaken the informant's case but did not destroy it, and the defendant would have a right of appeal if convicted in relation to the extension of time ruling. Because the challenged rulings lacked the character and finality of interlocutory orders within s 104(4) of the Justices Act 1902, leave to appeal and cross appeal had to be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Under S 104(4) of the Justices Act 1902 / Supreme Court Review of Rulings Made in the Bankstown Local Court
Outcome
Both applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'duplicity in Informations' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdiction Under the Justices Act 1902']
['criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'animal Welfare Offences'] ['interlocutory Orders' 'leave to Appeal' 'duplicity in Informations' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdiction Under the Justices Act 1902']

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

Applications for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Under S 104(4) of the Justices Act 1902 / Supreme Court Review of Rulings Made in the Bankstown Local Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether rulings relating to duplicity of informations and an extension of time were interlocutory orders for the purposes of s 104(4) of the Justices Act 1902.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the informant against the ruling that certain informations were duplicitous.' 'Whether the defendant should be permitted to cross appeal against the ruling that the extension of time was valid.']

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's ruling that certain informations were duplicitous might weaken the informant's case but did not destroy it, and the defendant would have a right of appeal if convicted in relation to the extension of time ruling. Because the challenged rulings lacked the character and finality of interlocutory orders within s 104(4) of the Justices Act 1902, leave to appeal and cross appeal had to be refused.

Court Disposition

Both applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's time to lodge her cross appeal was extended by twenty-eight days." 'Both applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.' 'The question of costs was left for argument on delivery of the reasons.']