NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: CAN, Vural v R [2007] NSWCCA 346
HEARING DATE(S): 27 November 2007
JUDGMENT DATE: 14 December 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Grove J at 2; Harrison J at 3
DECISION: The application for extension of time to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – Crown's obligation to call witnesses – allegation of miscarriage of justice – obligation does not extend to investigation of every potential witness or theory raised by defence – no miscarriage of justice – EVIDENCE – evidence of consciousness of guilt – whether properly admitted by trial judge – no error found – APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL – inadequate material to support application – application refused
LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901 Evidence Act 1995
Chahine v R [2006] NSWCCA 179 Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 Dyers v The Queen [2002] HCA 45; (2002) 210 CLR 285 CASES CITED: Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Pollitt v The Queen [1992] HCA 35; (1991-2) 174 CLR 558 R v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396 R v Kneebone [1999] NSWCCA 279; (1999) 47 NSWLR 450
PARTIES: Vural Can (Appellant) Regina (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3253 (formerly 2007/1407)
COUNSEL: In person (Appellant) D G Staehli SC (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: In person (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
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