Application of Malcolm Potier (No. 2) [2015] NSWCCA 249

Application of Malcolm Potier (No. 2) [2015] NSWCCA 249

None of the matters raised was appropriate to be dealt with under r 50C. The Applicant's submissions attempted to re-argue matters already considered in the principal judgment, and no relevant error was demonstrated in relation to the Court's jurisdiction, parole consideration, refusal to deal with bail in the absence of Crown representation, or consideration of the likely success of another r 50C application when exercising discretion under s 151 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules to Re Open the Judgment of the Court / On the Papers; Application Refused
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['application to Set Aside or Vary Order' 're Opening Judgment' 'bail Application' 'parole Consideration' 'criminal Justice Stay Warrant']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['application to Set Aside or Vary Order' 're Opening Judgment' 'bail Application' 'parole Consideration' 'criminal Justice Stay Warrant']

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

Application Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules to Re Open the Judgment of the Court / On the Papers; Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the principal judgment should be re-opened under r 50C because of an alleged mistake of law over the Court's inherent jurisdiction." "Whether the principal judgment should be re-opened because of an alleged mistake of fact over the status of the Applicant's parole consideration." "Whether the principal judgment should be re-opened because of an alleged mistake of law over rejection of the Applicant's bail application." 'Whether the principal judgment should be re-opened because findings or conclusions on ongoing matters allegedly caused potential unreasonable prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the matters raised was appropriate to be dealt with under r 50C. The Applicant's submissions attempted to re-argue matters already considered in the principal judgment, and no relevant error was demonstrated in relation to the Court's jurisdiction, parole consideration, refusal to deal with bail in the absence of Crown representation, or consideration of the likely success of another r 50C application when exercising discretion under s 151 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application refused']