A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244

A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244

Johnson J's indication as to how he would direct the jury on the meaning of 'mutilates' in s 45(1)(a) did not determine the proceedings or an identifiable part of them, was not capable of entry in the court records, and lacked finality because it could be modified during the trial. It was a ruling on a question of law rather than an interlocutory judgment or order, so the proposed appeal under s 5F(3) was incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Pre Trial Ruling Concerning a Proposed Jury Direction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'competency of Appeal' 'section 5 F Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)' 'female Genital Mutilation' "meaning of 'mutilates' in S 45 Crimes Act 1900 (nsw)" 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'competency of Appeal' 'section 5 F Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)' 'female Genital Mutilation' "meaning of 'mutilates' in S 45 Crimes Act 1900 (nsw)" 'jury Directions']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Pre Trial Ruling Concerning a Proposed Jury Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Johnson J's pre-trial ruling concerning the meaning of 'mutilates' in s 45(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was an interlocutory judgment or order amenable to appeal under s 5F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)." 'Whether the proposed appeal was competent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Johnson J's indication as to how he would direct the jury on the meaning of 'mutilates' in s 45(1)(a) did not determine the proceedings or an identifiable part of them, was not capable of entry in the court records, and lacked finality because it could be modified during the trial. It was a ruling on a question of law rather than an interlocutory judgment or order, so the proposed appeal under s 5F(3) was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused.']