Regina v O'Meara [2002] NSWCCA 134

Regina v O'Meara [2002] NSWCCA 134

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show that Nield DCJ proceeded on any wrong principle in dealing with the constitutional contentions, there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the indictment was brought for a collateral purpose, one ground was not pressed, another depended on rejected contentions, and some matters had already been dealt with by the Court in earlier proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Dismissing Notice of Motion
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'indictment' 'jurisdiction of the District Court' 'commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' 'permanent Stay' 'abuse of Process' 'constitutional Notices']
['criminal Procedure' 'constitutional Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'indictment' 'jurisdiction of the District Court' 'commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' 'permanent Stay' 'abuse of Process' 'constitutional Notices']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Dismissing Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal against Nield DCJ's order dismissing the applicant's notice of motion." "Whether the applicant's constitutional and jurisdictional challenges to the proposed indictment disclosed error by Nield DCJ." 'Whether the proposed indictment should be stayed on the ground that it was brought for a collateral purpose.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show that Nield DCJ proceeded on any wrong principle in dealing with the constitutional contentions, there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the indictment was brought for a collateral purpose, one ground was not pressed, another depended on rejected contentions, and some matters had already been dealt with by the Court in earlier proceedings.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ["Leave to appeal against Judge Nield's order dismissing the applicant's motion refused."]