R. v. SINANOVIC [2001] NSWCCA 217

R. v. SINANOVIC [2001] NSWCCA 217

Leave was refused because Blanch CJ DC made no interlocutory judgment or order affecting the trial beyond listing arrangements and expressly left any application by the appellant's wife to assist at trial to the trial judge; no error of law or principle appeared in Moore DCJ's reasons dismissing the motion to quash the indictment or stay proceedings; and the proposed challenge to Luland DCJ's refusal of an adjournment had no merit and should not be entertained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Alleged Interlocutory Judgments or Orders Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S.5 F(3) / Application to Extend Time and for Leave to Appeal; Informal Application for Leave Also Raised
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'stay of Proceedings' 'adjournment of Trial' 'representation by Non Lawyer']
['criminal Law and Procedure' 'criminal Appeals'] ['interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'stay of Proceedings' 'adjournment of Trial' 'representation by Non Lawyer']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Alleged Interlocutory Judgments or Orders Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S.5 F(3) / Application to Extend Time and for Leave to Appeal; Informal Application for Leave Also Raised

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Blanch CJ DC made an interlocutory judgment or order capable of appeal when refusing to grant the appellant's wife leave to appear at a listing hearing." "Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Moore DCJ's dismissal of the appellant's Notice of Motion seeking to quash the indictment, enter no bill, and stay proceedings indefinitely." "Whether the Court should entertain an informal application for leave to appeal from Luland DCJ's refusal to adjourn the trial." 'Whether any error of law or principle was shown sufficient to warrant leave to appeal under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s.5F(3).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Blanch CJ DC made no interlocutory judgment or order affecting the trial beyond listing arrangements and expressly left any application by the appellant's wife to assist at trial to the trial judge; no error of law or principle appeared in Moore DCJ's reasons dismissing the motion to quash the indictment or stay proceedings; and the proposed challenge to Luland DCJ's refusal of an adjournment had no merit and should not be entertained.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused in each of the two formally listed matters.' 'The Court should not entertain the informal application made during the course of the afternoon.']