AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Court of Criminal Appeal 23 May 2025

AK v R

[2025] NSWCCA 74

Other
CIVIL PROCEDURE EXTENSION REFUSED BY REGISTRAR APPLICATION REFUSED

Citation: AK v R [2025] NSWCCA 74
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW
Date: 23 May 2025
Judge(s): Harrison CJ at CL

Background

The applicant, a convicted person who was sentenced in the District Court, filed two notices of motion in the Court of Criminal Appeal dated 23 April 2025. The first sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, with the proposed deadline being 28 February 2025. The second sought access to unedited transcripts of both the trial and the sentencing proceedings.

At a call-over on 24 April 2025, the Registrar refused the application for an extension of time. The Registrar took the view that the question of whether to grant the extension was properly a matter for the court hearing the appeal itself, which was listed for 16 June 2025. The applicant then brought the matter before Harrison CJ at CL by way of review of those procedural decisions.

  • Whether the Registrar's refusal to grant an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal should be overturned
  • Whether the applicant should be granted access to unedited transcripts of the trial and sentencing proceedings, separate from any court book prepared for the appeal

Decision

On the extension of time, Harrison CJ at CL confirmed that the Registrar's approach was correct. The question of whether to grant the extension is properly reserved for the full hearing of the appeal, scheduled for June 2025. The applicant's position remained adequately protected because the issue could be revived before the Court of Criminal Appeal at that time.

On the transcript access application, the applicant had not demonstrated why the unedited transcripts were required in any way that went beyond their ordinary inclusion in the court book prepared for the appeal. The court noted that if the applicant considered relevant material had been omitted from the appeal papers, the appropriate course was to raise that with the court when the matter came on for hearing.

Harrison CJ at CL found no basis to depart from the Registrar's orders in any respect, and declined to make an order granting access to the nominated transcripts.

Orders Made

  • The Registrar's decision of 24 April 2025 refusing the extension of time was confirmed.
  • The application for access to the unedited transcripts was refused.

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a question of whether to grant an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal is ordinarily a matter for the court at the substantive appeal hearing, not a matter to be resolved at a pre-hearing call-over by the Registrar.
  • Refusing access to unedited transcripts, the court found that an applicant must demonstrate a specific need for those transcripts beyond their ordinary incorporation into the appeal court book.
  • Where an applicant believes material is missing from appeal papers, the appropriate step is to raise that issue before the court at the time of the appeal hearing.
  • No error was established in the Registrar's procedural decisions, and Harrison CJ at CL confirmed those decisions without modification.
  • This decision reflects the general principle that procedural protections for an appellant or applicant are not necessarily undermined by deferring ancillary questions to the substantive hearing.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment or metadata.