Regina v Natoli [2005] NSWCCA 292

Regina v Natoli [2005] NSWCCA 292

Leave to appeal was refused because no relevant interlocutory order or judgment concerning the indictment had been made, and the matters raised did not amount to wholly exceptional circumstances justifying intervention in an ongoing District Court trial that was almost over; any substantiated errors could be addressed on appeal after conviction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Alleged Interlocutory Order or Judgment in an Ongoing District Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'indictment' 'no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'indictment' 'no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'jury Trial']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Alleged Interlocutory Order or Judgment in an Ongoing District Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an interlocutory order or judgment concerning the indictment that could be brought before the Court under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal should intervene in the conduct of an ongoing District Court jury trial.' 'Whether alleged errors concerning no case to answer, Crown opening, Prasad directions and Crown closing address justified leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no relevant interlocutory order or judgment concerning the indictment had been made, and the matters raised did not amount to wholly exceptional circumstances justifying intervention in an ongoing District Court trial that was almost over; any substantiated errors could be addressed on appeal after conviction.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused.']