NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Armstrong v R [2021] NSWCCA 311 Hearing dates: 10 September 2021 Date of orders: 16 December 2021 Decision date: 16 December 2021 Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1] Bellew J at [47] Hamill J at [48] Decision: The Application be dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL – applicant convicted of offences in 2007 – received unconditional pardon in 2011 – applied to quash his convictions under s 84 of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001- whether application under s 84 can only be made if convictions subject to inquiry under Division 4 of Part 7 – Held – no jurisdiction to determine application. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Legislation (Review of Convictions) Amendment Act 1993 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Interpretation Act 1987 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Attorney-General (Cth) v Ogawa (2020) 281 FCR 1; [2020] FCAFC 180 Eastman v DPP (2003) 214 CLR 318; [2003] HCA 28 Folbigg v Attorney General of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 44 Harrison v Melhem (2008) 72 NSWLR 380; [2008] NSWCA 67 Holzinger v Attorney-General of Queensland (2020) 5 QR 314; [2020] QCA 165 Horwitz v Conner (1908) 6 CLR 38; [1908] HCA 33 Huynh v Attorney-General (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 297 Kelleher v Parole Board (NSW) (1984) 156 CLR 364; [1984] HCA 77 Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (Vic) (2008) 234 CLR 275; [2008] HCA 37 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 381; [1998] HCA 28 R v Foster [1985] 1 QB 115 R v Pohl (17 December 1993, unrep) R v Rendell (22 June 1994, unrep) The Queen v Toohey; ex parte Northern Land Council (1980) 151 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 74 Texts Cited: Evatt, The Royal Prerogative, The Law Book Company Limited, 1997 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Phillip Armstrong (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Wendler (Applicant) E Balodis (Crown)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate