Riddell v R [2016] NSWCCA 70

Riddell v R [2016] NSWCCA 70

The adjournment was refused because the proposed affidavits from former trial counsel would add nothing material to the transcript, the missing material was either permanently unavailable, speculative, or unnecessary, the co-offender sentencing remarks were sufficient for any parity issue, and the appellant had ample time and access to prepare the appeal despite being in custody and unrepresented.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Application to Adjourn Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Adjournment Application
Outcome
Adjournment application refused.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Import Commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'adjournment Application' 'unrepresented Appellant in Custody' 'judicial Case Management' 'delay in Bringing Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conspiracy to Import Commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'adjournment Application' 'unrepresented Appellant in Custody' 'judicial Case Management' 'delay in Bringing Appeal']

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 Against Conviction and Sentence; Application to Adjourn Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's appeal should be adjourned because he was not ready and required further time to prepare submissions and cross-reference transcript material." 'Whether the appeal should be adjourned to allow the appellant to obtain affidavits from former trial counsel about events said not to be apparent from the transcript.' 'Whether missing transcript, interlocutory judgments, and co-offender sentencing material justified delaying the hearing of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the proposed affidavits from former trial counsel would add nothing material to the transcript, the missing material was either permanently unavailable, speculative, or unnecessary, the co-offender sentencing remarks were sufficient for any parity issue, and the appellant had ample time and access to prepare the appeal despite being in custody and unrepresented.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused.

Orders

  • ['Adjournment application refused.']