R v Carver [1999] NSWCCA 135

R v Carver [1999] NSWCCA 135

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show a sufficient basis to doubt Judge Davidson's conclusion that the missing documents did not create the exceptional and incurable unfairness required for a permanent stay. The fact that lost evidence may have assisted the defence or been capable of raising a reasonable doubt did not itself mean that the applicant could not receive a fair trial, given the trial judge's powers and discretions and the public interest in trying serious offences.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of a Permanent Stay of District Court Proceedings; Time to Apply Extended Under Rule 5 B
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'loss of Evidence' 'fair Trial' 'fraud Offences' 'leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law and Procedure'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'loss of Evidence' 'fair Trial' 'fraud Offences' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of a Permanent Stay of District Court Proceedings; Time to Apply Extended Under Rule 5 B

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the refusal of a permanent stay of proceedings on the ground that lost documents deprived the applicant of a fair trial.' 'Whether the loss of documents capable of assisting the defence or raising a reasonable doubt necessarily creates incurable unfairness requiring a permanent stay.' 'Whether any prejudice from the missing documents could be addressed by the powers and discretions of the trial judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show a sufficient basis to doubt Judge Davidson's conclusion that the missing documents did not create the exceptional and incurable unfairness required for a permanent stay. The fact that lost evidence may have assisted the defence or been capable of raising a reasonable doubt did not itself mean that the applicant could not receive a fair trial, given the trial judge's powers and discretions and the public interest in trying serious offences.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Time to apply for leave extended pursuant to rule 5B.' 'Leave to appeal refused.']