13 Jun 2023
The application was dismissed because no written transcript existed and the Rules do not require the Court or Registrar to create one; access to the audio would require judicial permission and supervised listening that would impose unreasonable resource burdens, and the applicant did not establish sufficient grounds to override those constraints.
18 Dec 2017
Leave to appeal was denied because the matters raised do not involve a question of law of general or public importance, the District Court judge legitimately exercised discretion to exclude fresh evidence and the additional documents would not have altered the outcome, consistent with the RTA emphasis on finality.
9 Dec 2016
The court exercised its discretion under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and authority in Gosnell v R to permit immediate release only of the applicant's own evidence and to condition release of the remainder on written confirmation from the applicant's lawyer that the transcript is required for legal proceedings, with release to the lawyer subject to a non-dissemination limitation; the Privacy Act did not justify full release.
20 Oct 2004
The applicant did not show that the omission of further transcript material gave rise to a real risk of miscarriage of justice or that the appeal raised a matter of general or public importance; therefore under s13(1) Supreme Court Act 2003 leave to appeal must be refused.