R v Forsyth

Case [2013] ACTSC 179

[HUMAN RIGHTS ACT]

R v ADAM TONY FORSYTH
[2013] ACTSC 179 (31 October 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment, Stay of Proceedings or Order Restraining Proceedings – application for stay of proceedings because of delay in bringing matter to trial – Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) – right to trial without unreasonable delay – four years passed between first court mention and first day listed for trial (after vacation of earlier trial) – delay attributable both to accused and to institutional delays – delay unreasonable – significance of prejudice – whether public authority had unlawfully disregarded accused’s right to trial without unreasonable delay – available remedies – when stay of proceedings an appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay under Human Rights Act 2004 – no unlawful disregard of accused’s human rights by DPP – accused not entitled to remedy – if remedy available, stay would not have been an appropriate remedy – stay refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment, Stay of Proceedings or Order Restraining Proceedings – application for stay of proceedings because of delay in bringing matter to trial – no identifiable prejudice shown – no unfairness shown – no abuse of process shown – no stay available at common law – stay refused.

Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 (ACT)

Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 8, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 40, 40B, 40C
Human Rights Amendment Act 2008 (ACT)
Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (No 3) (ACT)

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 146

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 20

Explanatory statement to the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2007 (ACT)

Explanatory statement to the Human Rights Bill 2003 (ACT)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part 1 of the Canada Act 1982 (UK)) ss 11, 24 

Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) c 42 ss 2, 4, 6, 7, 8

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) ss 3, 25

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 June 1952), art 6
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 172 (entered into force 3 November 1976), art 9, 14

Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2001) [2004] 2 AC 72
Bloxham v Wyte [2013] ACTSC 151
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23
Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101
Martin v Tauranga District Court [1995] 2 NZLR 419
McFarlane v Ireland (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No. 31333/06, 10 September 2010)
Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1
R vAskov [1990] 2 SCR 1199
R v Bui [2011] 5 ACTLR 230
R v DF [2010] ACTSC 31
R v Godin [2009] 2 SCR 3
R v Kalanj [1989] 1…

Continue reading R v Forsyth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Forsyth [2013] ACTSC 179
Case
[2013] ACTSC 179
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Forsyth, the defendant applied for a stay of proceedings due to an alleged unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant contended that the delay in bringing the case to trial, which spanned over four years from the first court mention to the first day listed for trial, constituted an unreasonable delay and a violation of their right to trial without unreasonable delay under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). The defendant argued that the delay was attributable both to their own actions and to institutional delays, and that the delay had caused identifiable prejudice, unfairness, and an abuse of process.

The court had to determine whether the delay in bringing the case to trial was unreasonable, whether there was an unlawful disregard of the defendant's right to trial without unreasonable delay, and whether a stay of proceedings was an appropriate remedy under the Human Rights Act 2004. The court also considered whether the defendant was entitled to a remedy at common law if the Human Rights Act remedy was not available. The court found that there was no unlawful disregard of the defendant's human rights by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that the defendant was not entitled to a remedy. The court also found that even if a remedy was available, a stay of proceedings would not have been an appropriate remedy in this case.

The court held that the application for a stay of proceedings was refused. The court found that there was no identifiable prejudice, unfairness, or abuse of process shown by the defendant, and that no stay was available at common law. The court concluded that the delay was not unreasonable and did not violate the defendant's right to trial without unreasonable delay. The court also noted that the defendant had not shown any specific prejudice that would warrant a stay of proceedings. Therefore, the application for a stay of proceedings was refused, and the case proceeded to trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a stay of proceedings is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.