Singh v NSW Police [2020] NSWSC 1214

Singh v NSW Police [2020] NSWSC 1214

Leave to appeal was refused because the summons was out of time, there did not appear to be any identifiable appealable interlocutory order, no error of law was demonstrated, there was no basis for the Supreme Court to summarily dismiss the charges or vary the bail condition, and the plaintiff's substantive contentions should be raised at the Local Court hearing of the charges.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From the Local Court to the Supreme Court Under S 53 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Determination of Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the summons.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court' 'interlocutory Order' 'question of Law Alone' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal of Charges' 'bail Condition Variation' 'inclosed Land Protection Act 1901 (nsw) Charges' 'costs']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals and Review' 'bail'] ['appeal From Local Court to Supreme Court' 'interlocutory Order' 'question of Law Alone' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal of Charges' 'bail Condition Variation' 'inclosed Land Protection Act 1901 (nsw) Charges' 'costs']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From the Local Court to the Supreme Court Under S 53 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Determination of Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Local Court decision under s 53(3) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).' 'Whether there was an identifiable interlocutory order of the Local Court involving an error of law.' 'Whether the summons was filed within the required time.' 'Whether the Supreme Court should summarily dismiss the charges, vary or cancel the bail condition, or vacate the Local Court hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the summons was out of time, there did not appear to be any identifiable appealable interlocutory order, no error of law was demonstrated, there was no basis for the Supreme Court to summarily dismiss the charges or vary the bail condition, and the plaintiff's substantive contentions should be raised at the Local Court hearing of the charges.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the summons.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "The plaintiff's summons is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the summons."]