Harrison v Harris (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 135

Harrison v Harris (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 135

Because the application was listed on short notice, the prosecutor challenged whether the Duty Judge had power under Rule 15, and the practical prejudice could be avoided by an undertaking not to rely on interim non-compliance, the appropriate course was to stand the defendant's notice of motion over for hearing before Pepper J and make agreed directions preserving the status quo.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Application Concerning Stay of Orders Made on Sentence / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Stay Orders Listed Urgently Before the Duty Judge and Stood Over for Hearing Before the Trial Judge
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion stood over for hearing before Pepper J; undertaking noted; directions made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Made on Sentence' 'suspension of Penalty or Costs Pending Appeal' 'judge of the Court of Trial' 'water Management Act Offence' 'costs Order' 'publication Order']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['stay of Orders Made on Sentence' 'suspension of Penalty or Costs Pending Appeal' 'judge of the Court of Trial' 'water Management Act Offence' 'costs Order' 'publication Order']

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

Class 5 Application Concerning Stay of Orders Made on Sentence / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Stay Orders Listed Urgently Before the Duty Judge and Stood Over for Hearing Before the Trial Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the stay sought under Rule 15 of the Criminal Appeal Rules could be granted by a judge other than the Judge of the Court of Trial.' "Whether interim arrangements should be made to preserve the status quo pending determination of the defendant's notice of motion by Pepper J."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the application was listed on short notice, the prosecutor challenged whether the Duty Judge had power under Rule 15, and the practical prejudice could be avoided by an undertaking not to rely on interim non-compliance, the appropriate course was to stand the defendant's notice of motion over for hearing before Pepper J and make agreed directions preserving the status quo.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion stood over for hearing before Pepper J; undertaking noted; directions made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["Stand over the defendant's notice of motion to Monday 19 August 2013 for hearing before Pepper J." "Note the undertaking by the prosecutor not to rely upon an alleged failure to comply with Order 6 made on 17 July 2013 during the period commencing on 14 August 2013 until the defendant's notice of motion filed on...