Application of Malcolm Potier (No 3) [2015] NSWCCA 306

Application of Malcolm Potier (No 3) [2015] NSWCCA 306

The Court held that Mr Potier's application under r 50C did not raise any error or misapprehension of fact or law capable of correction within the limited operation of r 50C. The application merely sought to re-argue issues already determined in the principal judgment of his conviction appeal. No jurisdiction existed to reconsider the merits. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Huntley Potier; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Reopen Judgment Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal, R 50 C Application, Judicial Bias, Admissibility of Evidence, Disclosure, Public Interest Immunity, Best Evidence Rule
Criminal Law Appeal R 50 C Application Judicial Bias Admissibility of Evidence Disclosure Public Interest Immunity Best Evidence Rule

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Huntley Potier

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Reopen Judgment Under R 50 C of the Criminal Appeal Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should reopen its decision disposing of Mr Potier's conviction appeal, pursuant to r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules, for alleged mistakes of fact and law.
  2. 2 Whether alleged misapprehensions of fact and law in the principal judgment justify setting aside or varying the order.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds raised fall within the limited jurisdiction of r 50C.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Mr Potier's application under r 50C did not raise any error or misapprehension of fact or law capable of correction within the limited operation of r 50C. The application merely sought to re-argue issues already determined in the principal judgment of his conviction appeal. No jurisdiction existed to reconsider the merits. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to re-open the judgment and orders of 3 June 2015 under r 50C is dismissed.
  • No order varying or setting aside the previous judgment or orders is made.