AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 18 June 2003

Regina v Heatley

[2003] NSWCCA 163

Other
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ORDER BY TRIAL JUDGE APPEAL NOT PRESSED

Citation: Regina v Heatley [2003] NSWCCA 163
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 18 June 2003
Judge(s): Grove J, Sully J, Barr J

Background

This matter arose during the criminal trial of the accused in the Supreme Court before Kirby J. The Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police brought an interlocutory appeal challenging orders made by the trial judge requiring the production of certain documents. The precise nature of those documents and the orders is not detailed in the judgment.

The appeal was brought as of right under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which permits the Attorney General to appeal interlocutory orders during the currency of a trial. The Attorney General and Commissioner of Police were the appellants; the Crown and the accused also participated in the proceedings.

  • Whether the trial judge's orders compelling production of certain documents should stand
  • Whether a practical accommodation could be reached that served both the accused's right to conduct his defence and the appellants' concerns about producing the documents

Decision

During the hearing before the full bench, the Court suggested that the parties explore procedures capable of satisfying both the accused's legitimate defence requirements and the concerns of the appellants that had prompted their resistance to the production orders.

The parties reached an agreement along those lines. The matter was adjourned part-heard to allow implementation of that agreement, with the Court indicating that if the arrangement was successfully implemented, the appeal could be disposed of before a single judge.

Grove J subsequently sat alone to finalise the matter. Counsel for the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police confirmed that the agreement had been carried out as foreshadowed. On that basis, Grove J dismissed the appeal.

Orders Made

  • The appeal was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • Under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, the Attorney General holds a right of appeal against interlocutory orders made during a trial, including orders requiring the production of documents.
  • In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal acted on confirmation that a negotiated accommodation between the parties had been successfully implemented, rendering further appellate intervention unnecessary.
  • Where an interlocutory appeal is resolved by agreement, the Court of Criminal Appeal may adjourn the matter part-heard, allow implementation of the agreed arrangement, and then dispose of the appeal before a single judge.
  • No substantive ruling was made on the merits of the document production orders; the appeal was resolved entirely on a consensual basis.
  • The judgment contains minimal detail about the underlying documents or the precise terms of the parties' agreement, so its precedential value on the substantive question of document production is limited.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F

Cases cited:
- None cited in the judgment.