Riddell v R (No. 3) [2017] NSWCCA 92

Riddell v R (No. 3) [2017] NSWCCA 92

Although the Applicant could seek to revive the appeal he abandoned in open court, it was not just or appropriate to grant an extension of time. The procedural history was extraordinary, the Applicant had been given generous opportunities to prepare, his proposed grounds remained discursive and incoherent, he continued to rely on voluminous repetitive material, and he was still not in a position to proceed with a comprehensible and orderly appeal. Beech-Jones J was not disqualified because prior participation in earlier procedural decisions did not show any logical connection to a feared departure from impartial decision-making, and the Applicant could not re-agitate those final decisions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application After Abandonment of Earlier Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for Beech-Jones J to disqualify himself refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'abandonment of Appeal' 'procedural Dismissal' 'apprehended Bias' 'failure to Prosecute Appeal Diligently']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'abandonment of Appeal' 'procedural Dismissal' 'apprehended Bias' 'failure to Prosecute Appeal Diligently']

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 for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Application After Abandonment of Earlier Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence after abandoning his appeal in open court.' "Whether the Applicant's proposed grounds and materials were sufficiently coherent and his appeal sufficiently prepared to justify further use of the Court's processes." "Whether Beech-Jones J should disqualify himself for apprehended bias because of participation in earlier decisions concerning the Applicant's appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant could seek to revive the appeal he abandoned in open court, it was not just or appropriate to grant an extension of time. The procedural history was extraordinary, the Applicant had been given generous opportunities to prepare, his proposed grounds remained discursive and incoherent, he continued to rely on voluminous repetitive material, and he was still not in a position to proceed with a comprehensible and orderly appeal. Beech-Jones J was not disqualified because prior participation in earlier procedural decisions did not show any logical connection to a feared departure from impartial decision-making, and the Applicant could not re-agitate those final decisions.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for Beech-Jones J to disqualify himself refused.

Orders

  • ['The Applicant is refused an extension of time to file his Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence.' "Beech-Jones J refused the Applicant's application that he disqualify himself."]