Miles v R [2014] NSWCCA 72
Extension of time to appeal should be refused as there was no substantial injustice demonstrated; delay was lengthy and largely unexplained; grounds alleged minor irregularities but evidence overwhelmingly supported convictions and maintenance of verdicts occasioned no substantial miscarriage of justice.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction
- Outcome
- Extension of time to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal Against Conviction' 'extension of Time' 'directions to Jury' 'evidence of Flight' 'principle in Palmer V the Queen' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'tendency Evidence' 'good Character Evidence' 'proviso in Criminal Appeal Act']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an extension of time to appeal conviction should be granted' "Whether trial judge's directions violated the principle in Palmer v The Queen" 'Whether evidence of flight should have been admitted or adequately directed' 'Whether verdicts were rationally irreconcilable' 'Whether tendency evidence was improperly used or directed' 'Whether applicant should have benefited from good character evidence']
Ratio Decidendi
Extension of time to appeal should be refused as there was no substantial injustice demonstrated; delay was lengthy and largely unexplained; grounds alleged minor irregularities but evidence overwhelmingly supported convictions and maintenance of verdicts occasioned no substantial miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Extension of time to appeal refused
Orders
- ['Leave to appeal out of time refused']
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