By a letter dated 30 June 2022, Onur Dedeoglu seeks review under Rule 6.1 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (the "Rules") of various decisions of the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The power to review such decisions can be exercised by a "Judge of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice in the same manner as they may be exercised by the court, and subject to the same provisions" (Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 22(1)). The Chief Justice has designated all judges of the Common Law Division as having that power (and the other powers listed in s 22).
[2]
Background
Mr Dedeoglu was convicted on 20 February 2020, after a trial by jury, of two counts of indecent assault in contravention of s 61L of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of sexual intercourse without consent in contravention of s 61I. The offending of which he was found guilty involved an attack by Mr Dedeoglu, a driver for a ride-sharing service, upon a sleeping 17-year-old girl whom he had been retained to drive home.
On 7 April 2020, Judge Noman SC sentenced him to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months with a non‑parole period of 6 years to start from the day of his arrest, 2 April 2019.
On 7 April 2020, the day he was sentenced, Mr Dedeoglu filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal against conviction and sentence.
He sought and obtained an extension to that Notice on 6 November 2020 to 12 February 2021. On 8 February 2021, he was granted a further extension to 12 May 2021.
On 16 June 2021, Mr Dedeoglu filed a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal. He re-filed that application for leave to appeal with further grounds and written submissions on 29 July 2021.
On 22 October 2021, he filed a bail application. On 8 April 2022, his application for bail was struck out for want of jurisdiction. This was so because his application for leave to appeal was filed outside the time allowed and there were thus no proceedings pending before the Court (Dedeoglu v R [2022] NSWCCA 74).
Mr Dedeoglu's application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself were originally listed for hearing on 25 March 2022. However, that date was vacated and the application was listed on 22 July 2022. That hearing date was also vacated. At present, his application for leave to appeal has been allocated a hearing on 14 November 2022.
[3]
Request for an Expedited Appeal Hearing date
The first matter that Mr Dedeoglu seeks is an "immediate appeal hearing date". It is not entirely clear whether the decision to fix a hearing date by a Registrar is a matter that can be reviewed under Rule 6.1. However, it does not matter as I can fix a hearing date if I consider it appropriate. As noted, two previous hearing dates have been vacated. Both of those vacations were due to Mr Dedeoglu filing further submissions and material.
As at early June 2022, Mr Dedeoglu had filed the following documents:
Notice of appeal, grounds 1-18 and 249 pages of submissions, affidavit, filed 20 July 2021
Further grounds 19 and 20 with submissions, filed 23 November 2021
Further ground 21 with submissions, filed 18 November 2021
Affidavit with 32 documents, filed 14 March 2022
Index to affidavit, filed 14 April 2022
Amended submissions, filed 14 March 2022
Additional submissions, filed 14 March 2022
At the direction of the Registrar, Mr Dedeoglu filed a consolidated set of submissions totalling 369 pages which replaces the material he had filed to that time. As noted, the Registrar has allocated a hearing date of 14 November 2022 which allows the Respondent sufficient time to address the consolidated submissions.
Given the amount of material for the Crown to consider, and the interests of other litigants, I do not accept that there is any proper basis to bring Mr Dedeoglu's application for leave to appeal forward from 14 November 2022. As at that date, he will still have 2 and half years remaining in his non-parole period. In fact, Mr Dedeoglu should understand that if he were to file and seek to rely on additional material then he runs a risk that the proposed hearing date in November 2022 will be vacated in which case the matter will not be allocated a hearing date until 2023.
[4]
Request to Obtain a New Date for his Bail Hearing
Mr Dedeoglu has also sought a new date for the hearing of a further bail application. It would be an exercise in futility to fix any bail application in advance of his application for leave to appeal against his conviction. For the reasons given by this Court on 8 April 2022, it has no jurisdiction to grant him bail until such orders are made that result in him having an application pending in this Court.
[5]
Production Orders
On various occasions since 2021, Mr Dedeoglu has requested that the Court issue orders for production of documents under s 12 of the Criminal Appeal Act. Most of those applications were refused. In his letter seeking review of the Registrar's decisions, Mr Dedeoglu sought that those orders be made. They will be addressed in a separate judgment.
One part of Mr Dedeoglu's application for review complains about inadequate production by his former solicitors in response to a notice under s 12 that was issued to them. The Registrar has been advised by the solicitors that they have completed their response. Given that Mr Dedeoglu has sought to file every email that passed between himself and those solicitors, it seems that he already has access to at least some of their files. In any event, as the moving party it is incumbent on Mr Dedeoglu to demonstrate that full production has not occurred and, if that is demonstrated, take steps to have the notice enforced.
Mr Dedeoglu also complains that a notice that was issued under s 12 to a ride sharing company was not complied with. The Registrar advises that, to his knowledge, the order was served by an associate of Mr Dedeoglu. Consistent with what I have just stated, as the moving party it is incumbent upon Mr Dedeoglu to demonstrate that it was served on the proper legal entity and to take steps to enforce it.
[6]
Personal Attendance for Appeal
Mr Dedeoglu seeks to be present in person during the hearing of his appeal. He contends that the audio-visual link services are insufficient, and he has experienced difficulties with interpreters. Given the security and other issues raised by the presence of a prisoner at the hearing of the appeal, some special reason needs to be demonstrated as to why that should occur. As noted, Mr Dedeoglu has already filed a consolidated set of appeal submissions totalling 369 pages (along with other material) which far exceeds that usually filed on behalf of an appellant. Thus, he has more than sufficient opportunity to set out the basis for his appeal. I am not satisfied at this point that any reason has been demonstrated that warrants his personal attendance.
[7]
Time to Respond to Crown Submissions
The Registrar has referred to me the appropriate direction to make in respect of the time by which the Crown will be ordered to file its submissions. The Crown has requested that they be ordered to file submissions three weeks prior to the hearing date. Mr Dedeoglu has requested that he receive their submissions six weeks prior to the hearing and, if not, that they be translated into Turkish.
It seems clear that Mr Dedeoglu has authored every word of the 369‑page consolidated submissions noted above. His command of written English is such that there is no basis for ordering that the Crown's submissions be translated into Turkish. Given the amount of material that has been filed I will order that the Crown file its submissions four weeks prior to the hearing date, namely, on or before 17 October 2022.
[8]
Identity of Interpreter
Mr Dedeoglu has requested that certain Turkish interpreters not be used at the hearing of his appeal. This can be addressed by the Registrar.
[9]
Request to "Take Up" All His Documents
Mr Dedeoglu has filed grounds of appeal that complain, inter alia, about the conduct of his legal representatives. As part of his appeal, he has sought to file all emails passing between himself and his former solicitors. According to Mr Dedeoglu, the Registrar has refused to allow all of this material to be provided to the members of the Court who will hear his appeal as it involves "too many pages".
On the basis of this description, the Registrar was right to do so. The unfocussed filing of every email passing between Mr Dedeoglu and his solicitors will not advance his appeal and will waste the Court's time. It is necessary for an applicant for leave to appeal to identify the precise basis for filing any material that was not tendered at his or her trial including any particular communication between themselves and their solicitors.
[10]
Various Other Complaints about the Registrar
Mr Dedeoglu raised various complaints about the Registrar, specifically that he (allegedly) misinformed members of the Court who heard his bail application about whether he sought to extend his notice of appeal and the date his application for leave to appeal was fixed and prevented him from lodging a bail application. He also complains that the Registrar has delayed his appeal, wrongly denied that he had not received emails and letters, not submitted this application for review to a Judge and otherwise unfairly influenced Mr Dedeoglu's appeal and bail applications. Self-evidently his application for review was submitted to a judge for review. Otherwise, none of these matters concern decisions made under the Rules (and no basis for the complaints was made out).
[11]
Referral to a Judge for Case Management
Mr Dedeoglu requested that his matter not be managed by the Registrar but instead be referred to a "Neutral Member of the Registrar of [the] CCA". I will treat that application as a request for case management by a Judge. At this stage, judicial case management is not warranted.
[12]
Orders
To the extent that Mr Dedeoglu's application seeks a review of decisions made by the Registrar under the Rules, I confirm the Registrar's decision.
I otherwise order that the Respondent file and serve its submissions on or before 17 October 2022.
[13]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 07 September 2022