Frugtniet v Victoria

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIRBY J

SUZANNE MARIE FRUGTNIET v THE STATE OF VICTORIA & ORS
High Court Practice - Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure

(1997) 148 ALR 320

17 September 1997
High Court Practice - Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure

HIGH COURT PRACTICE - Stay—Application for order staying criminal trial—Pending application to High Court for relief under Constitution, s 75—Alleged failure to accord accused fair trial involving legal representation in accordance with Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292—Alleged inconsistency of Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 360A with implied guarantees said to arise from Constitution Ch III—Whether any irremediable harm to plaintiff—Whether balance of convenience requires stay—Stay refused. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Right to fair trial—Requirement of legal representation—Complex conspiracy charges—Many witnesses—Trial estimated to last months—Whether legal representation required by implications arising from Constitution, Ch III—Whether Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 360A inconsistent with Constitution—Whether stay of trial should be granted to protect alleged constitutional right—Stay refused. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—Right to fair trial—Lengthy trial—Conspiracy charges—Whether court unable to ensure that accused will receive a fair trial unless legally represented—Requirements of Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292—Whether such requirements derive from the Constitution, Ch III—Whether stay of trial by High Court should be ordered—Importance of manifest justice in criminal trials. Constitution of the Commonwealth, s 75 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 360A, 391, 391A Legal Aid Act 1978 (Vic)

Orders

Order: Summons dismissed

Decision

KIRBY J. A summons is before me. It has been returned with expedition. It concerns a request for an order to stay the commencement of the trial of a person in the County Court of Victoria. Unless stayed, that trial is expected to commence in Melbourne in the middle of next week. Only one of three persons presented for trial, Mrs Suzanne Frugtniet (the plaintiff) has applied for the stay. However, I am prepared to assume that the other accused, who are not represented before me, know of her application and either support it or do not oppose it for, in material respects, their positions appear to be similar to hers.

Application for declarations of constitutional right

The plaintiff appears in person. She claims the stay to allow this Court to hear and determine certain points presented for decision by a statement of claim which she has also filed in the Court. That statement of claim seeks two declarations, namely:

"1. A declaration that sections 360A(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) as amended by section 1 of the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act (Vic) is contrary to the implied Constitutional guarantee in Chapter III of the Constitution of a Constitutional right to a fair trial and therefore are invalid.

2. A declaration that the Court is unable to ensure that the Plaintiff will receive a fair trial without legal representation and in those circumstances stay the further proceedings until such time as legal representation is available based on the principles as set out by this Court in Dietrich v The…