AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 25 November 2022

Riddell v R

[2022] NSWSC 1581

Other
CRIME APPEAL NO REASON SHOWN TO VARY ORDERS

Citation: Riddell v R [2022] NSWSC 1581
Court: Supreme Court of NSW (Court of Criminal Appeal)
Date: 25 November 2022
Judge(s): Button J; Fagan J; R A Hulme AJ

Background

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, was convicted by a District Court jury in 2007 of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of MDMA (136.9 kg) into Australia. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years, and was released to parole and deported to the United Kingdom in 2022.

In April 2022, the applicant filed his third application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against his conviction. In support, he filed 4,281 pages of submissions and referenced materials, including a 670-page statement of grounds, a 1,237-page table of transcript references, and hundreds of pages of correspondence and affidavit material.

On 8 September 2022, Beech-Jones CJ at CL made interlocutory case management orders directing that all filed material be returned to the applicant and that he refile submissions not exceeding 200 pages. The applicant purported to appeal those orders to a Full Court of three judges.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Full Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or administrative law review of interlocutory orders made by a single judge exercising jurisdiction under s 22 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
  • Whether, on a proper reconsideration of the Chief Judge's orders, any basis existed to vary or vacate those orders
  • Whether it was practical and appropriate to require the applicant to confine his grounds and submissions to 200 pages

Decision

Issue 1: Jurisdiction to appeal or review

The applicant invoked numerous provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act and raised administrative law grounds including unreasonableness, denial of procedural fairness, and jurisdictional error. The Court found that none of the provisions cited conferred any right of appeal from a decision of a single judge exercising jurisdiction under s 22 of that Act (at [15]). The Court further held that a Full Court of three judges has no jurisdiction to conduct administrative law review of a decision made by a single judge of the Supreme Court (at [15]).

Issue 2: Reconsideration of the Chief Judge's orders

Because the Chief Judge's interlocutory decision operated as a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal under s 22, the Full Court acknowledged it could reconsider, vacate, or amend its own interlocutory orders, but ordinarily only upon demonstration of a material change of circumstances (at [16]). The applicant made no attempt to demonstrate any such change (at [16]). The Court examined the applicant's written and oral submissions and found that they were directed largely at alleged errors in earlier judgments and other irrelevant matters, none of which bore on whether the filed material could be condensed (at [17]-[21]).

Issue 3: Whether a 200-page limit was appropriate

After examining the 4,281 pages sufficiently to understand their nature, the Court found it was not only possible but essential that the applicant confine his grounds and submissions to 200 pages in the interests of orderly and efficient hearing (at [18]). The submission that the material could not be so condensed was described as insupportable given the nature and content of the larger volume (at [17]). The Court accordingly pronounced orders in the same terms as those made by the Chief Judge (at [24]).

Orders Made

  • The Registrar was directed to return all submissions and support material filed by the applicant to him.
  • The applicant was ordered to file and serve submissions and other material not exceeding 200 pages on or before 31 January 2023.
  • The matter was listed before the Registrar for callover on 16 February 2023.
  • The respondent's application (to have the extension-of-time question heard separately and first) was stood over to the same callover on 16 February 2023.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 22 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), interlocutory orders made by a designated single judge exercising the Court of Criminal Appeal's jurisdiction take effect as orders of that Court. No separate right of appeal to a Full Court is conferred by that Act (at [15]).
  • A three-judge bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal has no jurisdiction to conduct administrative law review of a decision made by a single judge of the Supreme Court, even where the applicant frames grounds in terms of unreasonableness or jurisdictional error (at [15]).
  • Reconsideration of a court's own interlocutory orders ordinarily requires demonstration of a material change of circumstances. Where no such change is shown, the orders will stand (at [16]).
  • Case management powers under r 4.1 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 permit a designated judge to impose page limits on submissions. The Court confirmed that requiring condensed submissions serves the interests of orderly and efficient disposition of proceedings (at [18]).
  • Voluminous, internally inconsistent, and repetitive grounds documents do not in themselves justify departure from case management limits. The Court found that 4,281 pages of material could and should be reduced to 200 pages (at [17]-[18]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
- Criminal Code (Cth)
- Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
- Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021

Cases
- Riddell v R [2016] NSWCCA 70
- Riddell v R [2022] NSWCCA 198
- Riddell v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 74
- Riddell v R (No 3) [2017] NSWCCA 92