R v Potter [2006] NSWSC 1174

R v Potter [2006] NSWSC 1174

It would not be in the interests of the administration of justice for the application to proceed by audio-visual link, particularly given the applicant is unrepresented and proposes to give evidence requiring cross-examination. The hearing should take place in person with the applicant produced physically before the court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Redetermination of Life Sentence / Application Hearing Adjourned
Outcome
Application that hearing proceed by audio-visual link declined; application adjourned for hearing in Sydney.
Legal Topics
['application for Life Sentence Redetermination' 'audio Visual Link Hearings']

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 Redetermination of Life Sentence / Application Hearing Adjourned

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for life sentence redetermination should proceed by audio-visual link']

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be in the interests of the administration of justice for the application to proceed by audio-visual link, particularly given the applicant is unrepresented and proposes to give evidence requiring cross-examination. The hearing should take place in person with the applicant produced physically before the court.

Court Disposition

Application that hearing proceed by audio-visual link declined; application adjourned for hearing in Sydney.

Orders

  • ['Matter adjourned for hearing on 1 December 2006 in Sydney.' 'Applicant to be produced at Court in Sydney in accordance with s.77 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 order.' "Crown to make contact with Prisoners' Legal Service regarding Applicant's representation and documentary materials."]