REGINA v CHENG [1999] NSWCCA 373

REGINA v CHENG [1999] NSWCCA 373

Section 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 did not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear the Crown's appeal because the District Court judge's no case ruling and proposed direction to acquit were not an interlocutory judgment or order. Given the fundamental principle that the Crown cannot appeal from an acquittal, general words such as "interlocutory judgment or order" were insufficiently clear and unambiguous to authorise an appeal so closely related to an acquittal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S5 F(2) From a District Court Ruling on a No Case to Answer Submission Before the Jury Had Been Directed or Discharged
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S5 F' 'interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'no Case to Answer' 'crown Appeal Against Acquittal']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S5 F' 'interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'no Case to Answer' 'crown Appeal Against Acquittal']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal Under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 S5 F(2) From a District Court Ruling on a No Case to Answer Submission Before the Jury Had Been Directed or Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s5F(2) to hear the Crown's appeal." "Whether the District Court judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy count, and proposed direction to acquit, was an interlocutory judgment or order." 'Whether general words in s5F(2) should be construed to permit a Crown appeal closely related to a verdict of acquittal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5F(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 did not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear the Crown's appeal because the District Court judge's no case ruling and proposed direction to acquit were not an interlocutory judgment or order. Given the fundamental principle that the Crown cannot appeal from an acquittal, general words such as "interlocutory judgment or order" were insufficiently clear and unambiguous to authorise an appeal so closely related to an acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']