Regina v "YZ" [1999] NSWCCA 48

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal CITATION : Regina v "YZ" [1999] NSWCCA 48 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60261/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 08/09/98 18/08/98 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 March 1999

PARTIES : Regina "YZ" JUDGMENT OF : Beazley JA at 1; Sully J at 23; Dunford J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/11/0699 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Blanch CJ DC

COUNSEL : P S Hastings QC/ S McNaughton (Commonwealth DPP) P Bodor QC/ J Doris (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Neil J O'Connor & Associates (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law; Appeal; Reduced Sentence; "Without reasonable excuse"; Statutory Interpretation; Administrative Law; Judicial Review; Jurisdictional Fact; Collateral Challenge Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ACTS CITED : Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Customs Act 1901 (Cth) Parsons (1992) 74 A Crim R 172 Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL & Ors [1999] NSWCA 8 CASES CITED: Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 Federal Airports Corporation v Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) 76 FCR 582 Webster v The Breadcarters Union of NSW (1930) 30 SR(NSW) 267 Piper v Corrective Services Commission of NSW (1986) 6 NSWLR 352 DECISION : Preliminary Ruling Given

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60261/97

BEAZLEY JA SULLY J DUNFORD J

Thursday, 25 March 1999

REGINA v "YZ"

JUDGMENT

1. BEAZLEY JA: This is an appeal against sentence brought by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) under s 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). That section enables the DPP to appeal against the adequacy of a reduced sentence where a convicted person, without reasonable excuse, has failed to comply with an undertaking to provide co-operation to law enforcement agencies. A preliminary question has arisen, however, as to whether the respondent can challenge, on the appeal, the question whether his failure to co-operate with his undertaking was "without reasonable excuse". This judgment deals with that preliminary question.