Bathurst CJ at [1]; Adamson J at [33]; Bellew J at [222]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Stay of proceedings — Application for permanent stay refused by primary judge
CRIME — Significant pre-trial publicity in the form of popular podcast and associated reports, which included matters which would be inadmissible at trial and prejudicial to the accused — Whether directions would be sufficient to ameliorate prejudice — Rare circumstances in which pre-trial publicity warrants a permanent stay of criminal proceedings
CRIME — Appeals — Interlocutory appeal — By accused against interlocutory judgment — Leave to appeal against refusal of a permanent stay — Further evidence admitted — Whether the primary judge’s discretion miscarried — The primary judge applied the correct test, did not fail to take into account relevant considerations and it was not unreasonable for the primary judge to refuse a permanent stay — Consideration of authorities concerning the grant of a permanent stay and the question of delay — Prejudice to the accused occasioned by pre-trial publicity and delay can be remedied or sufficiently ameliorated — Trust placed by the administration of justice in the ability of jurors to abide by directions
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Dawson v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dawson v R [2021] NSWCCA 117
Case
[2021] NSWCCA 117
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Dawson v R, the accused sought a permanent stay of criminal proceedings based on the significant pre-trial publicity generated by a popular podcast and associated media reports, which included inadmissible and prejudicial information. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the primary judge’s refusal to grant a permanent stay and the subsequent interlocutory appeal by the accused.
The legal issues before the court involved the extent to which the pre-trial publicity could warrant a permanent stay of proceedings, and whether directions to the jury would be sufficient to ameliorate any potential prejudice. The court was also required to consider whether the primary judge’s discretion in refusing the stay was correctly exercised and whether the accused's right to a fair trial was compromised.
The High Court held that the primary judge had applied the correct test in determining whether a permanent stay was warranted. The court found that the pre-trial publicity, while prejudicial, did not reach the threshold of "rare circumstances" necessary to justify a permanent stay. The court placed trust in the ability of jurors to follow directions, concluding that any prejudice could be remedied or sufficiently mitigated. The court further found that the primary judge had not miscarried in their discretion and that it was not unreasonable for the stay to be refused. The appeal against the interlocutory judgment was dismissed, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.
The court did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the primary judge's decision.