Citation: [2000] NSWCCA 81
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 16 March 2000
Judge(s): Sheller JA, Hulme J, Dowd J
Background
The appellant, Trevor Kenneth Jefferies, was appealing a decision from the District Court before Viney DCJ. The appeal had been listed for hearing on 20 March 2000.
Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the appellant applied to vacate that date and also sought an order requiring a barrister, James Barnett, to attend before the Court. The grounds of appeal included particulars (numbered 3 to 7) that apparently touched on matters within Barnett's knowledge, making his evidence relevant to the appeal's progress.
Following discussion between the parties, agreed orders were proposed and adopted by the Court. The judgment itself is brief and confined entirely to recording those procedural orders.
Legal Issues
- Whether the scheduled hearing date of 20 March 2000 should be vacated
- Whether James Barnett, barrister, should be required to provide sworn evidence addressing specific matters raised in the appellant's grounds of appeal (particulars 3 to 7)
Decision
The Court accepted the orders proposed by consent following discussions between the parties. Sheller JA delivered brief reasons recording that agreement had been reached, and the Court proceeded to make the orders accordingly.
No substantive reasoning on the merits of the underlying appeal appears in this judgment. The decision is confined entirely to managing the procedural steps necessary before the appeal could be properly heard.
Orders Made
- James Barnett, barrister, of 1/332 Pitt Street, Sydney, was ordered to swear an affidavit setting out his knowledge and belief as to the matters specified in particulars 3 to 7 of the appellant's grounds of appeal, and to provide that affidavit to the appellant's solicitors before 5 pm on Friday 24 March 2000.
- The hearing date of 20 March 2000 was vacated and the appeal stood over for listing before the Registrar at the next available call-over date after 24 March 2000.
Key Takeaways
- This decision is purely procedural and resolves no question of substantive criminal law or sentencing principle.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal exercised its procedural powers to compel a barrister to provide sworn evidence relevant to grounds of appeal before the substantive hearing could proceed.
- Where grounds of appeal raise matters within the knowledge of a former legal representative, the court may require that person to swear an affidavit addressing those specific matters.
- Agreement between the parties on procedural steps did not eliminate the need for formal court orders to give those steps legal effect.
- No merits of the underlying appeal were considered or determined in this judgment.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the text of this judgment or in the provided metadata.