R v Duncan Sak Cheung LAM, Ting Man NGAI & Tin Fong SO (aka Man Kwan LAM) [2000] NSWCCA 252

R v Duncan Sak Cheung LAM, Ting Man NGAI & Tin Fong SO (aka Man Kwan LAM) [2000] NSWCCA 252

The application for a stay was refused because the notice of appeal challenged a severance order that the trial judge had not made and therefore had no prospects of success. The proposed amendment to challenge the refusal of the Crown's adjournment application was also hopeless because no wrong principle was shown in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, and the trial judge was entitled to consider prejudice to Mr Lam as well as the substantial further custody and delay that a stay would impose on Mr Lam and Mr Ngai.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Crown Application for Stay Pending Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Refusal of Crown Adjournment Application in the District Court
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['stay of Trial Pending Appeal' 'crown Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912' 'adjournment' 'severance of Accused' 'conspiracy to Supply a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['stay of Trial Pending Appeal' 'crown Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912' 'adjournment' 'severance of Accused' 'conspiracy to Supply a Large Commercial Quantity of a Prohibited Drug']

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

Crown Application for Stay Pending Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Refusal of Crown Adjournment Application in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial of Mr Lam and Mr Ngai should be stayed until the Court heard and determined the Crown's appeal under s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912." 'Whether the Crown should be permitted to amend its notice of appeal to challenge the refusal of its adjournment application.' 'Whether the notice of appeal had prospects of success where it alleged an order severing Mr So from the indictment that had not been made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because the notice of appeal challenged a severance order that the trial judge had not made and therefore had no prospects of success. The proposed amendment to challenge the refusal of the Crown's adjournment application was also hopeless because no wrong principle was shown in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, and the trial judge was entitled to consider prejudice to Mr Lam as well as the substantial further custody and delay that a stay would impose on Mr Lam and Mr Ngai.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application to amend the notice of appeal refused.' 'Application for a stay refused.']