Regina -v- Kevin Sean Ryan [2000] NSWCCA 184

Regina -v- Kevin Sean Ryan [2000] NSWCCA 184

The Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal because the applicant did not establish error in Judge Gibson's discretionary refusal to permanently stay the proceedings. The judge was not shown to have failed to consider the strength of the Crown case, and the result was not so unreasonable as to attract appellate intervention under House v The King. The circumstances did not have the features that justified intervention in Nicholson.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From District Court Refusal of an Application for a Permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings
Outcome
Leave granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['demanding Money With Menaces' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay in Criminal Trial' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Decisions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['demanding Money With Menaces' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'delay in Criminal Trial' 'appellate Review of Discretionary 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal From District Court Refusal of an Application for a Permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the District Court judge erred in refusing to permanently stay the proceedings due to delay.' 'Whether the refusal of a permanent stay was so unreasonable as to warrant appellate interference under House v The King.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal because the applicant did not establish error in Judge Gibson's discretionary refusal to permanently stay the proceedings. The judge was not shown to have failed to consider the strength of the Crown case, and the result was not so unreasonable as to attract appellate intervention under House v The King. The circumstances did not have the features that justified intervention in Nicholson.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']