REGINA v VORHAUER [2002] NSWCCA 483

REGINA v VORHAUER [2002] NSWCCA 483

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeals were plainly hopeless and based on misconceived constitutional and procedural arguments. The District Court had no power under s40 or s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to transfer the proceedings to the High Court, State courts may exercise federal jurisdiction over constitutional matters, the constitutional provisions relied on did not invalidate the criminal proceedings or District Court orders, and at least one challenged decision lacked the requisite finality for an interlocutory appeal under s5F.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Interlocutory Decisions / Applications for Leave to Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeals From Interlocutory Decisions' 'leave to Appeal' 'removal of Proceedings to the High Court' 'stay of District Court Proceedings' 'section 78 B Notices' 'state Court Jurisdiction Over Constitutional Matters']
['criminal Law' 'constitutional Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['appeals From Interlocutory Decisions' 'leave to Appeal' 'removal of Proceedings to the High Court' 'stay of District Court Proceedings' 'section 78 B Notices' 'state Court Jurisdiction Over Constitutional Matters']

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 From Interlocutory Decisions / Applications for Leave to Appeal Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from interlocutory judgments or orders of the District Court under s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the District Court had power under s40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) or s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to transfer proceedings to the High Court of Australia.' 'Whether State courts have jurisdiction to determine constitutional issues.' 'Whether constitutional arguments based on s73, s76, s77, s109 and s114 of the Constitution invalidated the criminal proceedings or District Court orders.' 'Whether a purported cross-summons or indictment against third parties could be brought in the District Court proceedings.' 'Whether a notice of discontinuance was required in respect of proceedings against Lisa Amelia Vorhauer.' "Whether the Attorney General's representative had a right of appearance under s78A of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeals were plainly hopeless and based on misconceived constitutional and procedural arguments. The District Court had no power under s40 or s78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to transfer the proceedings to the High Court, State courts may exercise federal jurisdiction over constitutional matters, the constitutional provisions relied on did not invalidate the criminal proceedings or District Court orders, and at least one challenged decision lacked the requisite finality for an interlocutory appeal under s5F.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal refused.' 'Leave to extend time to appeal against the judgment of Kirkham DCJ refused.']