SELIM v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 378

SELIM v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 378

Leave to appeal was refused as none of the grounds raised by the applicant had sufficient prospects of success; objections to the indictment for formal defect were not made in accordance with statutory requirements; the legislative intent is for procedural efficiency in jury trials and s 39 does not require specification of a concrete judicial proceeding at the time of alleged destruction.

Parties
Applicant: James Selim; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
5 F Appeal, Validity of Indictment, Duplicity, Contemplation of Judicial Proceedings, Appeals of Interlocutory Decisions
Criminal Law 5 F Appeal Validity of Indictment Duplicity Contemplation of Judicial Proceedings Appeals of Interlocutory Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Selim

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment is defective due to duplicity by use of multiple characterisations in s 39 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether there is latent duplicity in the indictment due to more than one kind of judicial proceeding being in contemplation
  3. 3 Whether the test applied to establish the accused's state of mind as to knowledge that an item may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding is correct

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused as none of the grounds raised by the applicant had sufficient prospects of success; objections to the indictment for formal defect were not made in accordance with statutory requirements; the legislative intent is for procedural efficiency in jury trials and s 39 does not require specification of a concrete judicial proceeding at the time of alleged destruction.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave should be refused
  • Application dismissed