Ku-ring-gai Council v Abroon [2011] NSWLEC 1

Ku-ring-gai Council v Abroon [2011] NSWLEC 1

Leave was refused because the application was made very late on day four of an intended two-day hearing, without explanation for the omission from the defendant's earlier affidavit or the delay; admitting the evidence would prejudice the prosecuting council unless a further adjournment were granted, causing disruption, costs and delay, and those factors outweighed the defendant's benefit in relying on the evidence for penalty submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Sentencing Proceedings / Sentence Hearing; Oral Application for Leave to Adduce Further Oral Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Application to adduce further evidence in chief refused
Legal Topics
['application to Adduce Further Oral Evidence in Chief' 'financial Circumstances and Capacity to Pay Penalty' 'prejudice to Prosecutor' 'adjournment and Efficient Conduct of Proceedings']
['practice and Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['application to Adduce Further Oral Evidence in Chief' 'financial Circumstances and Capacity to Pay Penalty' 'prejudice to Prosecutor' 'adjournment and Efficient Conduct of Proceedings']

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 Application in Sentencing Proceedings / Sentence Hearing; Oral Application for Leave to Adduce Further Oral Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave during a sentence hearing to adduce further oral evidence-in-chief about his financial circumstances.' 'Whether admitting the further evidence would prejudice the prosecuting council or require an adjournment.' 'Whether the lateness of the application and the efficient conduct of proceedings justified refusing leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the application was made very late on day four of an intended two-day hearing, without explanation for the omission from the defendant's earlier affidavit or the delay; admitting the evidence would prejudice the prosecuting council unless a further adjournment were granted, causing disruption, costs and delay, and those factors outweighed the defendant's benefit in relying on the evidence for penalty submissions.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce further evidence in chief refused

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to adduce oral evidence in chief from Mr Abroon as to his financial circumstances is refused.']