R v HOULTON [1999] NSWCCA 100

R v HOULTON [1999] NSWCCA 100

Leave to appeal was refused because the attacks on the District Court judge's findings failed, the refusal of a permanent stay fell within the bounds of discretion, and the proposed appeal was unlikely to succeed. Although there had been substantial and regrettable delay, it did not prejudice the applicant in the conduct of his defence and did not make continuation of the proceedings unfairly or unjustifiably oppressive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act From Refusal of a Permanent Stay of Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay' 'abuse of Process' 'fair Trial' 'fraudulent Misappropriation']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay' 'abuse of Process' 'fair Trial' 'fraudulent Misappropriation']

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

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act From Refusal of a Permanent Stay of Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act against the District Court order refusing a permanent stay of proceedings.' 'Whether the delay and related circumstances meant that any trial would necessarily be unfair or that continuation of the proceedings would be unfairly oppressive and an abuse of process.' 'Whether the applicant had shown sufficient doubt in the District Court decision or that the interests of justice required interlocutory intervention.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the attacks on the District Court judge's findings failed, the refusal of a permanent stay fell within the bounds of discretion, and the proposed appeal was unlikely to succeed. Although there had been substantial and regrettable delay, it did not prejudice the applicant in the conduct of his defence and did not make continuation of the proceedings unfairly or unjustifiably oppressive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']