R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 342

R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 342

The extension of time was refused because, on the appellant's own admissions, he was guilty of the offence; the sentence had expired before the appeal was instituted; the grounds advanced did not adequately justify the delay; and the proposed legal basis was unsound because exclusion of evidence for alleged state instigation was discretionary, the Crown evidence was not objected to at trial, the appellant was represented by experienced counsel, and he admitted the offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time within which to appeal refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'entrapment' 'conspiracy to Maliciously Damage Property' 'public Interest Immunity' 'incompetent Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'entrapment' 'conspiracy to Maliciously Damage Property' 'public Interest Immunity' 'incompetent Appeal']

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 Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to appeal when the notice of appeal was lodged about three years after the 28 days allowed by section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act.' "Whether the appellant's proposed appeal had merit on the basis that his offence was allegedly instigated by Detective Ireland and evidence should have been excluded under the principle in Ridgeway v The Queen." 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should intervene where the Crown evidence was tendered without objection and the appellant admitted the offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because, on the appellant's own admissions, he was guilty of the offence; the sentence had expired before the appeal was instituted; the grounds advanced did not adequately justify the delay; and the proposed legal basis was unsound because exclusion of evidence for alleged state instigation was discretionary, the Crown evidence was not objected to at trial, the appellant was represented by experienced counsel, and he admitted the offence.

Court Disposition

Extension of time within which to appeal refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['Extension of time within which to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed as incompetent.']