Regina v Cox [1999] NSWCCA 229
The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the evidentiary onus of proving indigence and, accordingly, her Honour was correct to refuse a permanent stay and a sufficiently long adjournment. Furthermore, the determination was not attended by sufficient doubt, nor did the interests of justice require intervention, so leave to appeal was not warranted.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Ian Ormond Cox
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 10 August 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Application for Leave to Appeal, Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Adjournment, Indigence, Legal Representation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Ian Ormond Cox
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 whether a permanent stay of proceedings should be granted due to indigence and absence of legal representation
- 2 whether a sufficiently long adjournment should be granted to allow applicant to raise funds for legal representation
- 3 whether leave to appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the evidentiary onus of proving indigence and, accordingly, her Honour was correct to refuse a permanent stay and a sufficiently long adjournment. Furthermore, the determination was not attended by sufficient doubt, nor did the interests of justice require intervention, so leave to appeal was not warranted.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- application for leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment