Holloway v R [2015] NSWCCA 207

Holloway v R [2015] NSWCCA 207

Section 556(2) did not apply because the offences with which Holloway was charged were not offences of which he might have been convicted summarily without consent under the relevant legislation, and the criminal prosecution was not 'on the information' of the civil plaintiff but initiated by police and DPP. No unfairness or abuse of process sufficient to warrant a permanent stay was established; participation in civil proceedings was voluntary and the applicant was aware of self-incrimination risks.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Trial Judge's Interlocutory Dismissal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'permanent Stay' 'quashing Indictment' 'crimes Act S 556(2)' 'misuse of Civil Proceedings in Criminal Litigation']
['criminal Law'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'permanent Stay' 'quashing Indictment' 'crimes Act S 556(2)' 'misuse of Civil Proceedings in Criminal Litigation']

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

Interlocutory Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Trial Judge's Interlocutory Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 556(2) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prevents prosecution after civil proceedings' "Whether the applicant was charged with offences of which he 'might have been convicted summarily without consent under this Act'" 'Whether applicant was charged on the information of the plaintiff in the civil proceedings' 'Whether unacceptable injustice or unfairness exists when prosecution is based on evidence obtained in prior civil proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 556(2) did not apply because the offences with which Holloway was charged were not offences of which he might have been convicted summarily without consent under the relevant legislation, and the criminal prosecution was not 'on the information' of the civil plaintiff but initiated by police and DPP. No unfairness or abuse of process sufficient to warrant a permanent stay was established; participation in civil proceedings was voluntary and the applicant was aware of self-incrimination risks.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']