AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 8 September 2022

Riddell v R

[2022] NSWCCA 198

Drugs
CRIMINAL APPEAL PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS LENGTHY SUBMISSIONS NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: Riddell v R [2022] NSWCCA 198
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 8 September 2022
Judge(s): Beech-Jones CJ at CL

Background

The applicant was convicted in 2007 of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of MDMA into Australia, contrary to the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years. His non-parole period expired in 2022, after which he was returned to the United Kingdom.

The applicant had a protracted history of prior applications for leave to appeal, including multiple adjournments, voluminous filings, and a withdrawal and subsequent failed reinstatement of his appeal. That earlier history was described by Johnson J as "unprecedented" in Riddell v R (No 3) [2017] NSWCCA 92.

In April 2022, the applicant filed yet another application for leave to appeal against his conviction, together with an application for an extension of time. By the time of this directions hearing, he had filed over 4,200 pages of material in support of his application.

  • Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had power to impose a page limit on an unrepresented applicant's submissions and require him to refile consolidated material.
  • Whether the Crown's motion seeking a separate preliminary hearing on the extension of time question should be listed for hearing immediately.

Decision

Beech-Jones CJ at CL found it "overwhelmingly necessary in the interests of justice" to impose a page limit on the applicant's materials. The Chief Judge identified three distinct reasons: the volume and tone of the submissions created an oppressive burden on the respondent Crown in preparing a response; it would place an extremely heavy workload on the individual judges required to consider the material; and, most significantly, allowing the appeal to proceed in its current form would divert judicial resources away from other appellants awaiting decisions in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Chief Judge noted that the applicant could not reasonably have been surprised by this intervention, given the extensive directions made in his prior applications, including by RA Hulme J, warning that the Court would not tolerate reliance on excessive volumes of material. The Chief Judge also observed that the size, content, and tone of the material filed was itself an impediment to the applicant receiving a fair and timely hearing of his own application.

The power to make this direction was exercised under r 4.1 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), which provides an express case management power enabling a single designated judge to give directions for the timely and efficient conduct of proceedings. The page limit was set at 200 pages, which the Chief Judge noted already "vastly exceeds" material filed in any CCA appeal in the preceding four years, with one exception involving an eleven-month trial on its fourth retrial.

The Crown's motion seeking a separate preliminary hearing on the extension of time issue was stood over pending the applicant's compliance with the new filing direction.

Orders Made

  • The Registrar was directed to return all submissions and supporting material filed by the applicant.
  • The applicant was ordered to file and serve consolidated submissions and supporting material, not exceeding 200 pages, by 31 January 2023.
  • The matter was listed before the Registrar for callover on 16 February 2023.
  • The Crown's notice of motion was stood over to the same callover on 16 February 2023.

Key Takeaways

  • Under r 4.1 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021, a single designated judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal may impose binding case management directions, including page limits on an applicant's submissions, without the matter proceeding to a full bench.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that the interests of other appellants awaiting hearings form a legitimate and weighty basis for imposing page limits, independently of any prejudice to the Crown respondent or burden on the individual judges assigned to the case.
  • A prior history of excessive and repetitive filings, documented across multiple earlier decisions, was treated as relevant context when assessing whether the applicant could have held a reasonable expectation that the current filing would be tolerated.
  • Allowing proceedings to advance on the basis of 4,200 pages of material was found to be contrary to the applicant's own interests, as the volume itself was characterised as an impediment to a fair and timely hearing.
  • The decision raises no question of principle and is confined to its procedural context.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(b) (as it then was)
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW), r 4.1

Cases
- Riddell v R [2016] NSWCCA 70
- Riddell v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 74
- Riddell v R (No 3) [2017] NSWCCA 92