KAMM v R [2007] NSWCCA 275

KAMM v R [2007] NSWCCA 275

Leave was refused because the Court found no substance in the suggestion that requiring the trial to proceed would cause injustice: the police officers who took the statements were available to give evidence, any handwriting expert inquiry was available to the defence and would be limited, and the application lacked sufficient merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law; Application for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to S 5 F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 / Pre Trial Application in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['section 5 F Application' 'sexual Offences' 'pre Trial Evidence' 'fair Trial' 'forgery Allegation' 'witness Credit' 'handwriting Expert Evidence' 'non Publication Order']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['section 5 F Application' 'sexual Offences' 'pre Trial Evidence' 'fair Trial' 'forgery Allegation' 'witness Credit' 'handwriting Expert Evidence' 'non 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

Criminal Law; Application for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to S 5 F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 / Pre Trial Application in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal under s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912.' 'Whether failure to investigate allegations that witness statements were incorrect and signatures were forgeries could deny the applicant a fair trial.' 'Whether inquiries by police officers or a handwriting expert could produce admissible evidence at trial.' 'Whether the Crown was required to obtain handwriting expert evidence concerning the challenged signature.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Court found no substance in the suggestion that requiring the trial to proceed would cause injustice: the police officers who took the statements were available to give evidence, any handwriting expert inquiry was available to the defence and would be limited, and the application lacked sufficient merit.

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.' 'Both the making of this application and the reasons in relation to the application are not to be published until after the conclusion of the trial of the applicant.']