Ith v R [2012] NSWCCA 70

Ith v R [2012] NSWCCA 70

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because, although the delay was not occasioned by the applicant, the proposed appeal lacked merit: the identification and accomplice directions were adequate in the circumstances, evidence of Dharma's guilty plea was admissible and not productive of unfairness, the Crown advocate's unsupported submission about tanning was of little consequence and not objected to, and the Court was not persuaded that any individual or cumulative miscarriage of justice occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal out of time is refused.
Legal Topics
['identification Evidence' 'accomplice Evidence' 'plea of Guilty by Co Offender' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['identification Evidence' 'accomplice Evidence' 'plea of Guilty by Co Offender' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'leave to Appeal Out of Time' 'jury Directions']

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 Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding identification evidence were inadequate." "Whether the trial judge's directions regarding the evidence of the accomplice, Sena Aji Dharma, were erroneous or inadequate." "Whether the trial judge failed to adequately or properly direct the jury regarding the use to be made of the accomplice's plea of guilty." "Whether the Crown trial advocate erred by adducing evidence of the accomplice's plea of guilty and by making a submission without evidentiary foundation." 'Whether the combination of alleged defects occasioned a miscarriage of justice.' 'Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because, although the delay was not occasioned by the applicant, the proposed appeal lacked merit: the identification and accomplice directions were adequate in the circumstances, evidence of Dharma's guilty plea was admissible and not productive of unfairness, the Crown advocate's unsupported submission about tanning was of little consequence and not objected to, and the Court was not persuaded that any individual or cumulative miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal out of time is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal out of time is refused.']