Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 231

Re Application by Dedeoglu (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 231

The applicant's requests largely misconceived the appeal process and the limited function of s 12. The requested orders were generally broad, unfocused, not shown to be connected to specific grounds of appeal, sought information or further statements beyond the power conferred by s 12, or were otherwise not shown to be necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The Registrar's refusals were therefore upheld and the review application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of the Registrar's Refusal to Make Orders Under S 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / On the Papers; Application for Review While Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Pending
Outcome
Application for review of the Registrar's decision dismissed.
Legal Topics
["review of Registrar's Decision" 'production of Documents' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'section 12 Notices' 'interests of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ["review of Registrar's Decision" 'production of Documents' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'section 12 Notices' 'interests of Justice']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of the Registrar's Refusal to Make Orders Under S 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / On the Papers; Application for Review While Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Registrar's refusals to make orders under s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) should be reviewed and set aside." 'Whether the production of documents, information, further statements or witness attendance sought by the applicant was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.' 'Whether the material sought was sufficiently connected to identified grounds of appeal and sufficiently narrow in scope.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's requests largely misconceived the appeal process and the limited function of s 12. The requested orders were generally broad, unfocused, not shown to be connected to specific grounds of appeal, sought information or further statements beyond the power conferred by s 12, or were otherwise not shown to be necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The Registrar's refusals were therefore upheld and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review of the Registrar's decision dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The application for review of the Registrar's decisions is dismissed."]