R v Drozd - [1993] QCA 224

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 224

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10 of 1993

Brisbane
[Drozd v. Director of Public Prosecutions]

BETWEEN

EDWARD CHARLES DROZD

Applicant/Appellant

- and -

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

The Chief Justice Mr Justice Pincus Mr Justice Davies

Judgment delivered 17 June 1993
Joint Reasons of Pincus J.A. and Davies J.A., the Chief

Justice separately. All concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - fresh witnesses' statements adduced after criminal committal proceedings - whether lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the statements at committal would result in unfair trial - whether difficulties in preparation of defence case unless cross-examination at committal possible.
Counsel:	Mr J A Jerrard Q.C., with him Ms C Holmes for the appellant
Mr R V Hanson Q.C., with him Mr J E L Taeffe for the respondent
Solicitors:	Messrs Boe and Company for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 24/02/93
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Q	UEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10 of 1993

B	risbane

Before the Chief Justice
Mr Justice Pincus

Mr Justice Davies

ETWEEN

EDWARD CHARLES DROZD

Applicant/Appellant

A :

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Judgment delivered 17/06/93

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons prepared

by Pincus J.A. and Davies J.A. and am in agreement with what
they say. I desire to add some additional observations.

The applicant had sought an order for a stay as a means

of achieving the result that the two proposed additional Crown
witnesses could be cross-examined in further committal
proceedings. For this and for no other purpose the applicant

sought an order, the effect of which would delay the trial.

Some procedural questions arise and they were debated

before us but I do not feel the need to say anything on those
aspects beyond remarking that I accept that the Court will
generally have a range of options available to avoid any
consequence of unfairness in a trial. It will have some
discretion in fashioning a remedy to achieve a proper result:

cf. Jago v. The District Court of New South Wales and Others

(1989) 168 C.L.R. 23 at 31 per Mason C.J.
It was submitted that the judge below applied too narrow
a test when he said that the applicant, if he was to succeed,
would have to show some abuse of process by the Crown.
Depending upon the way in which it is intended that this
phrase should be understood, it may be unduly narrow to
express the matter in this fashion: cf. Jago (supra) at 29.
However, the judge, in coming to his conclusion, did consider
a broad range of relevant circumstances. He then refused to

make the order sought.

In the end the fate of the application and others like it
must be judged according to the effect which will be caused to
the trial of the accused person involved.…

Grounds of appeal

[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 R v Drozd

Details

AGLC: R v Drozd [1993] QCA 224
Case: [1993] QCA 224
Decision Date: 17 June 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Drozd, the dispute involved the defendant, Drozd, appealing against a decision to deny a stay of criminal proceedings. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the trial should be stayed because fresh statements from key witnesses were adduced after the conclusion of the criminal committal proceedings. This situation raised concerns about the fairness of the trial, given that there had been no opportunity for the defence to cross-examine the witnesses on these new statements at the committal stage.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on the fresh statements at committal proceedings would result in an unfair trial. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the difficulties in preparing the defence case were such that it would be unfair unless cross-examination at committal was possible. The court examined whether the defendant's rights under the criminal justice system were being upheld by ensuring a fair trial, and if the absence of cross-examination at committal could prejudice the defendant's ability to adequately defend themselves.

The court held that the introduction of fresh witness statements after the committal proceedings could indeed lead to an unfair trial if the defence was not given the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses at the committal stage. The court recognised that such a lack of opportunity could significantly hinder the defendant's ability to adequately prepare their defence. The court found that the defendant's right to a fair trial, as enshrined in the principles of natural justice, was compromised in this instance. Consequently, the court granted the stay of proceedings to allow for the necessary cross-examination to take place.

The court's final orders included a stay of the criminal proceedings to permit the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the fresh statements. This ruling underscored the importance of ensuring that the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial are upheld in criminal proceedings.

Orders