PFC v R, R v PFC [2011] NSWCCA 130

PFC v R, R v PFC [2011] NSWCCA 130

Because the appellant's extensive materials made serious allegations about trial counsel and the solicitor, and because it would be unfair and unreliable to subject them to an unprepared roving examination, the Court adjourned the matter and made directions requiring concise statements from the appellant, affidavits from Mr Roff and Mr Webb, and a Crown tender bundle and analysis before the appeal hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal and Crown Sentence Appeal / Procedural Directions Before Hearing of the Conviction Appeal; Crown Sentence Appeal Heard With Decision Reserved
Outcome
Matter adjourned to a date to be fixed and procedural directions made.
Legal Topics
['conviction Appeal' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'alleged Incompetence of Trial Counsel' 'waiver of Privilege' 'subpoenas to Former Trial Representatives' 'fitness for Trial' 'procedural Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['conviction Appeal' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'alleged Incompetence of Trial Counsel' 'waiver of Privilege' 'subpoenas to Former Trial Representatives' 'fitness for Trial' 'procedural Directions']

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

Conviction Appeal and Crown Sentence Appeal / Procedural Directions Before Hearing of the Conviction Appeal; Crown Sentence Appeal Heard With Decision Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's proposed examination of his former solicitor and counsel should proceed immediately or be managed by procedural directions requiring concise statements and affidavit evidence." 'Whether the appellant should identify the bases, nature and significance of proposed fresh evidence for which leave would be sought.' 'What directions were necessary to enable the Court and the Crown to deal with extensive allegations concerning the conduct of the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant's extensive materials made serious allegations about trial counsel and the solicitor, and because it would be unfair and unreliable to subject them to an unprepared roving examination, the Court adjourned the matter and made directions requiring concise statements from the appellant, affidavits from Mr Roff and Mr Webb, and a Crown tender bundle and analysis before the appeal hearing.

Court Disposition

Matter adjourned to a date to be fixed and procedural directions made.

Orders

  • ['On or before 23 May 2011, the appellant file and serve a statement of no more than two pages setting out in summary form the topic areas relevant to any proposed examination of Mr Roff and Mr Webb.' 'On or before 23 May 2011, the appellant file and serve a statement of no more than five pages setting out the bases...