R. v. SINANOVIC [2001] NSWCCA 217

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R. v. SINANOVIC [2001] NSWCCA 217 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60250/01; 60251/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 May 2001

PARTIES : REGINA (Respondent) HAKIJA SINANOVIC (Appellant) JUDGMENT OF : Powell JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 22; Sully J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0025 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL (1) Blanch CJ DC; (2) Moore DCJ; (3) Luland DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : M.C. Grogan (Respondent) In person SOLICITORS : S.E. O'Connor (Respondent) In person CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Interlocutory judgment or order - What is - Leave to appeal against - When granted - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s.5F(3) - ND DECISION : Leave to appeal refused

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CCA 50250/01 CCA 60251/01 DC 01/11/0025

POWELLJA WOOD CJ at CL SULLY J

16 May 2001 REGINA v. HAKIJA SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT 1 POWELL JA: There was listed before the Court today an application to extend the time within which the Appellant, Mr Sinanovic, might seek leave to appeal from what is said to have been an interlocutory judgment or order given, or made, by Blanch J, the Chief Judge of the District Court, on 2 February last, in connection with an indictment which had been found against the Appellant, and which was to be listed for hearing in the District Court after an earlier appeal against conviction had been upheld. 2 There was also listed an application for leave to appeal against an order made by Moore DCJ in the District Court on 7 May last, when his Honour dismissed the Notice of Motion in which the Appellant had sought (inter alia) to have the further proceedings upon that indictment stayed. 3 In addition, the Appellant has sought to raise today what is, in effect, an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of Luland DCJ in the District Court on Monday last to adjourn the hearing on that indictment. 4 Although the materials which are before the Court make it difficult to be sure of what exactly were, and are, the Appellant's circumstances, it would appear that the Appellant had originally been arraigned on an indictment in September 1997, charging him with having fraudulently misappropriated certain moneys given to him by one Tina Ruello and, having pleaded not guilty to that indictment, he was tried before Acting Judge Stewart and a jury of twelve in the District Court during the month of September 1997. At the conclusion of that trial, the Appellant was found guilty. 5 Following that finding of guilt, his Honour sentenced the Appellant to a minimum term of two years and five months to commence on 3 November 1997 and to expire on 15 April 2000, and an additional term of ten months and one day, commencing on 16 April 2000 and expiring on 16 February 2001. 6 The Appellant appealed from that conviction and, although the matter is not entirely clear, it would seem that the Appellant also appealed to this Court in respect of a number of convictions which he had sustained following trials on other indictments before, among others, Judge Grogan and jury, Acting Judge Horler and jury, and Judge Maguire and jury, all appeals, including that in respect of the conviction before Acting Judge Stewart, seemingly being heard together. 7 Judgment in respect of those appeals was delivered in December last, the appeal in respect of the indictment for fraudulent misappropriation which had been dealt with by Acting Judge Stewart being upheld, the conviction and sentence quashed, and a new trial directed. However, as best I can judge it from the materials which are now before the Court, all the other appeals were dismissed and, although the sentences were adjusted because of the quashing of the conviction on the appeal that was upheld, the sentences were not reduced. 8 It would appear that thereafter there was, or were, filed in the High Court of Australia on behalf of the Appellant applications for special leave to appeal from the judgment or judgments of this Court dismissing the Appellant's appeals against the other convictions. The hearing of that application, or of at least one of those applications, was expedited by her Honour Gaudron J on 22 February last and that application was then heard by Gummow and Callinan JJ in the High Court on 10 April last, on which day special leave to appeal was refused. 9 Meantime, the proceedings which have given rise to these applications today had been listed before Blanch J on 2 February last, on which day, so it is alleged, his Honour ordered that the Appellant's wife "not be granted leave to assist and get access to represent in relation to the trial." That allegation appears to be based on the following passage in the transcript of proceedings before his Honour on that day: "HIS HONOUR: Yes, madam Crown? MRS SINANOVIC: For the accused, Hakija Sinanovic.