R v Giri (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 234

R v Giri (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 234

The appellant was not denied natural justice as he had multiple opportunities to address the proviso to s 6 and respond to the Crown’s submissions, both orally and in writing. There was no exceptional circumstance or misapprehension of law or fact justifying the reopening of the case. The court should not disturb its earlier order.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Nitin Giri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Reopen Judgment; Post Judgment Submissions
Outcome
Application to reopen and reconsider the judgment dismissed; prior order stands.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Judgment Reopening, Application of Proviso to S 6 of Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Judgment Reopening Application of Proviso to S 6 of Criminal Appeal Act 1912

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Nitin Giri

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Reopen Judgment; Post Judgment Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether natural justice was denied to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the case should be reopened and further submissions considered
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had opportunity to be heard on the application of the proviso to s 6 Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not denied natural justice as he had multiple opportunities to address the proviso to s 6 and respond to the Crown’s submissions, both orally and in writing. There was no exceptional circumstance or misapprehension of law or fact justifying the reopening of the case. The court should not disturb its earlier order.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen and reconsider the judgment dismissed; prior order stands.

Orders

  • The Court notes that the order made on 12 June 2001 is not to be changed.