Regina v Peter Ferenc Ladocki [2002] NSWCCA 442

Regina v Peter Ferenc Ladocki [2002] NSWCCA 442

The application failed because the challenged decision was an evidentiary ruling made before trial, and under The Queen v Steffan such a ruling is not an interlocutory judgment or order within s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW); in any event, leave before conviction would require unusual circumstances, which were not identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application Under Section 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a District Court Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Proceedings' 'admissibility of Unlawfully or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'controlled Operations' 'drug Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Appeals in Criminal Proceedings' 'admissibility of Unlawfully or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'controlled Operations' 'drug Offences']

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 Appeal Application Under Section 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a District Court Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against a District Court ruling admitting evidence under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 NSW.' 'Whether an evidentiary ruling made before or during a criminal trial is an interlocutory judgment or order within section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the challenged decision was an evidentiary ruling made before trial, and under The Queen v Steffan such a ruling is not an interlocutory judgment or order within s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW); in any event, leave before conviction would require unusual circumstances, which were not identified.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']