Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 205

Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 205

The application must be dismissed because the applicant’s complaints sought to relitigate the merits of a concluded appeal, falling outside the limited jurisdiction under rule 50C; there was no overlooked or undetermined ground of appeal, denial of procedural fairness, or misapprehension by the Court that would enliven the reopening power; assertions about new evidence or misdirections could not be reconsidered under this application.

Parties
Applicant: Damon Charles Miller; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (nsw) / Application to Reopen Appeal and Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Appeals, Rehearing and Finality of Orders, Jurisdiction to Reopen Judgments, Procedural Fairness, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Criminal Appeals Rehearing and Finality of Orders Jurisdiction to Reopen Judgments Procedural Fairness Disclosure Obligations

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 4 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damon Charles Miller

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (nsw) / Application to Reopen Appeal and Set Aside Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal has jurisdiction to reopen an appeal and set aside or vary orders under r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) prior to entry of judgment and in what circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the applicant’s complaints amount to a denial of procedural fairness or a misapprehension capable of correction under r 50C
  3. 3 Whether alleged errors and fresh evidence could justify the reopening of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application must be dismissed because the applicant’s complaints sought to relitigate the merits of a concluded appeal, falling outside the limited jurisdiction under rule 50C; there was no overlooked or undetermined ground of appeal, denial of procedural fairness, or misapprehension by the Court that would enliven the reopening power; assertions about new evidence or misdirections could not be reconsidered under this application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to set aside and vary prior judgment refused
  • Application for production of further records and attendance of witnesses refused