Prott v Munro [2013] NSWCA 241

Prott v Munro [2013] NSWCA 241

Leave to appeal was refused because s 26(3) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW) did not expressly or impliedly require the Magistrate to take into account the common law principles of finality of litigation or double jeopardy when deciding whether additional information justified a further application for the same forensic procedure. The applicant therefore did not show that the Magistrate failed to consider a statutorily mandatory matter, and no error of principle resulting in substantial injustice was identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Part of the Decision in ACP V Munro [2012] NSWSC 1510 Dismissing an Appeal From a Local Court Order Authorising a Non Intimate Forensic Procedure
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'forensic Procedures' 'non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'construction of S 26(3) of the Crimes (forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (nsw)' 'finality of Litigation' 'double Jeopardy']
['appeal and New Trial' 'criminal Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'forensic Procedures' 'non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'construction of S 26(3) of the Crimes (forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (nsw)' 'finality of Litigation' 'double Jeopardy']

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 / Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Part of the Decision in ACP V Munro [2012] NSWSC 1510 Dismissing an Appeal From a Local Court Order Authorising a Non Intimate Forensic Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Button J's decision dismissing the appeal from the Local Court order authorising the taking of a photograph of Mr Prott's face." 'Whether s 26(3) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW) required the Magistrate to consider principles of finality of litigation or double jeopardy when deciding whether additional information justified a further application for the same forensic procedure.' 'Whether the absence of specific reasons addressing finality of litigation permitted an inference that the Magistrate failed to apply the proper statutory test.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because s 26(3) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW) did not expressly or impliedly require the Magistrate to take into account the common law principles of finality of litigation or double jeopardy when deciding whether additional information justified a further application for the same forensic procedure. The applicant therefore did not show that the Magistrate failed to consider a statutorily mandatory matter, and no error of principle resulting in substantial injustice was identified.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.']