Evans v Sheils

(2004) 185 FLR 1; [2004] ACTSC 19

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Griffiths remand
4. › Adjournment before sentencing
5. › Whether decision to adjourn amenable to appellate review
6. › Whether appellate intervention would serve useful purpose
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 402
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeals
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Whether general grant of judicial power creates appellate jurisdiction
5. › Whether appeal lies from interlocutory sentencing decision
6. › Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 48A
7. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Bail
3. › Conditions of bail
4. › Whether bail condition requiring attendance at course constitutes financial penalty
5. › Bail Act 1992 (ACT)

A Griffiths remand (adjournment before sentencing) is not, absent specific legislative provision comparable to the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), a decision subject to appellate review in the ACT Supreme Court; the proper point for appeal is after final sentence is imposed.
Section 48A of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 and s 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1933 confirm the breadth of the Supreme Court's judicial power but do not constitute an express grant of a general or overriding appellate jurisdiction to 'right any wrong' from inferior courts; to the extent Kelly v Apps suggests otherwise, it should not be followed.
An appeal is a creature of statute and only lies where there is a clear provision granting it; a broad grant of judicial power to a superior court does not itself create appeal rights from inferior courts.