R v Elassaad (No. 2) [2024] NSWDC 180
The application to state a case was refused because the questions now sought to be raised were not argued before the judge at the appeal hearing, therefore not properly before the court, and because of delay in making the application. The judge found it inappropriate to grant a stated case on a ground that was not addressed at the original appeal hearing.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 April 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Application to State a Case in Criminal Appeal / Post Appeal, Application for Stated Case to Court of Criminal Appeal Refused
- Outcome
- Application to state a case refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['criminal Appeals' 'stated Case Procedure' 'lawfulness of Arrest' 'police Powers' 'delay']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application to State a Case in Criminal Appeal / Post Appeal, Application for Stated Case to Court of Criminal Appeal Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether to state a case for the Court of Criminal Appeal on alleged questions of law concerning lawfulness of arrest and sufficiency of evidence for resisting police' 'Whether questions were argued before the District Court judge at the appeal' 'Whether delay precludes granting of application']
Ratio Decidendi
The application to state a case was refused because the questions now sought to be raised were not argued before the judge at the appeal hearing, therefore not properly before the court, and because of delay in making the application. The judge found it inappropriate to grant a stated case on a ground that was not addressed at the original appeal hearing.
Court Disposition
Application to state a case refused.
Orders
- ['The application to state a case is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment