Regina v OM [2011] NSWCCA 109

Regina v OM [2011] NSWCCA 109

While the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence was not capable of satisfying the elements of perverting the course of justice (s 319), no order was actually made quashing the indictment or granting a stay; thus, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to intervene.

Parties
Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown); Respondent: OM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against a Ruling by the District Court on Interlocutory Application (attempt to Quash Indictment Counts)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (no appellate jurisdiction as no order made).
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, False Information to Police, Appellate Jurisdiction, Quashing Indictment
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice False Information to Police Appellate Jurisdiction Quashing Indictment

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Appellant

OM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against a Ruling by the District Court on Interlocutory Application (attempt to Quash Indictment Counts)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence was capable of establishing a prima facie case for acts intending to pervert the course of justice under section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory order or ruling was made by the trial judge, giving appellate jurisdiction under ss 5C or 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act
  3. 3 Scope of s 319 of the Crimes Act: whether conduct preceding curial proceedings (such as misleading police investigation) can constitute the offence

Ratio Decidendi

While the trial judge erred in finding that the evidence was not capable of satisfying the elements of perverting the course of justice (s 319), no order was actually made quashing the indictment or granting a stay; thus, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to intervene.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (no appellate jurisdiction as no order made).