R v BURRELL [2007] NSWCCA 79

R v BURRELL [2007] NSWCCA 79

The Court had jurisdiction, derived from its implied power to do justice to the parties, to consider the Crown's application because the appeal had been determined on a false understanding of some factual matters and therefore had not been finally determined on the relevant evidence. No reasonable apprehension of bias arose from the same bench reconsidering the matter. After excluding the factual matters not in evidence, the Court's conclusions on the appeal grounds did not change; the circumstantial evidence remained sufficient to support the verdicts, and the order dismissing the appeal was confirmed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Application to Reopen Criminal Appeal / After the Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissed the Appeal and the Order Was Entered
Outcome
The order of the Court dismissing the appeal is confirmed.
Legal Topics
['application to Reopen Criminal Appeal' 'apprehended Bias' 'jurisdiction After Perfected Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['application to Reopen Criminal Appeal' 'apprehended Bias' 'jurisdiction After Perfected Orders' 'procedural Fairness' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence']

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; Application to Reopen Criminal Appeal / After the Court of Criminal Appeal Dismissed the Appeal and the Order Was Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the Crown's application to reopen the appeal after judgment had been delivered and the dismissing order entered." 'Whether the application should be heard by a differently constituted court to avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias.' 'Whether factual matters wrongly treated as part of the trial evidence affected the determination of the appeal grounds.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had jurisdiction, derived from its implied power to do justice to the parties, to consider the Crown's application because the appeal had been determined on a false understanding of some factual matters and therefore had not been finally determined on the relevant evidence. No reasonable apprehension of bias arose from the same bench reconsidering the matter. After excluding the factual matters not in evidence, the Court's conclusions on the appeal grounds did not change; the circumstantial evidence remained sufficient to support the verdicts, and the order dismissing the appeal was confirmed.

Court Disposition

The order of the Court dismissing the appeal is confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The order of the Court dismissing the appeal is confirmed.']