ATTORNEY-GENERAL v CURRAN [2004] NSWCCA 234

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v CURRAN [2004] NSWCCA 234

The extension of time for filing the stated case was refused due to a largely unexplained thirteen-month delay, responsibility for the error partially lying with the prosecution, material prejudice to the respondent, and absence of exceptional circumstances. Further, the Attorney-General did not have standing to bring the stated case because there was no evidence of the DPP having taken over the proceedings in the District Court.

Parties
Appellant: Attorney-General; Respondent: Matthew Curran
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Stated Case / Application for Extension of Time to State a Case to Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; Court refuses to answer the stated question of law.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Extension of Time, Mens Rea, Intoxication, Stated Case Procedure
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Extension of Time Mens Rea Intoxication Stated Case Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General

Appellant

Matthew Curran

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Stated Case / Application for Extension of Time to State a Case to Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted for filing a stated case under s5B(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 given a thirteen month delay
  2. 2 Whether self-induced intoxication could be considered in determining mens rea for indecent assault under s428D Crimes Act 1900
  3. 3 Whether the Attorney-General had standing to bring the stated case

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time for filing the stated case was refused due to a largely unexplained thirteen-month delay, responsibility for the error partially lying with the prosecution, material prejudice to the respondent, and absence of exceptional circumstances. Further, the Attorney-General did not have standing to bring the stated case because there was no evidence of the DPP having taken over the proceedings in the District Court.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; Court refuses to answer the stated question of law.

Orders

  • Extension of the time for filing the stated case is refused.
  • The Court refuses to answer the question of law submitted because the question was submitted out of time.