Riddell v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 74

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Riddell v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 74 Hearing dates: 23 October 2015 & 1 April 2016 Date of orders: 01 April 2016 Decision date: 01 April 2016 Before: Adams J at [1] Davies J at [1] Beech-Jones J at [1] Decision: 1. Refuse leave to file notice of motion dated 31 March 2016.

2. To the extent necessary, grant the Applicant leave to withdraw his appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – Applicant seeks leave to file notice of motion re-agitating earlier application – Applicant sought to withdraw appeal – leave to file notice of motion refused. To the extent necessary leave to withdraw appeal granted. Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Andrew Riddell (Appellant) Crown Representation: Counsel: In person (Appellant) M. England & A. Rose (Crown) C. Waterstreet (amicus curiae)

Solicitors: Unrepresented (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): 2004/013814

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales

Court or Tribunal: District Court of NSW Jurisdiction: Criminal Medium Neutral Citation: Date of Decision: 17 August 2007 Before: Hosking DCJ File Number(s): 2004/013814

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (on application by Applicant for leave to file a notice of motion – revised from transcript) 1. ADAMS J: The first matter to be dealt with is a notice of motion and leave is required to file the notice of motion. The notice of motion seeks to reinstate his application seeking leave to appeal the orders of Justice Hulme filed on 27 August 2015 and his motion filed on 25 September 2015. Those applications call for equitable relief and/or orders and declarations "that will serve to restore the applicant's substantive common law and corresponding constitutional right to set aside the perverse conviction" and (c) his appeal's bail application filed 22 October 2015. 2. As to the first matter this was in substance dealt with on the last occasion and orders made in relation to the provision of further material. Accordingly, this matter has already been dealt with by the Court. Secondly, the motion of 25 September 2015 has also been dealt with on the last occasion. Thirdly, the applications relating to what is called equitable relief and declarations are not within the purview of this Court for the purpose of dealing with this appeal. Accordingly, there is no basis for considering such an application and since we are here to hear the appeal the question of bail doesn't arise and at all events is not before the Court. For those reasons I propose that the leave to file the notice of motion should be refused. 3. DAVIES J: I agree. 4. BEECH-JONES J: The effect of the orders made on the last occasion was that the applicant was able to place before this Court written submissions totalling 690 pages. The result of that was to modify to a very substantial degree the orders that were made by R.A. Hulme J which the Applicant wishes to again complain about. Further, lest there be any misunderstanding, this applicant has had every opportunity since the matter was adjourned to respond to the Crown's written submissions that were filed prior to the hearing on the last occasion. In addition, there appears to be some underlying complaint from the applicant that he has not had the opportunity to respond to the further submissions of the Crown which have sought to address the 690 pages which I referred to earlier. Of course the very point of today's hearing is to enable him to have that opportunity. For those additional reasons and the reasons given by Adams J I agree with his Honour's proposed order. 5. ADAMS J: Accordingly leave is refused. [The hearing of the appeal then continued]