R v Joyce - [2003] NSWCCA 84

CITATION: Regina v Joyce [2003] NSWCCA 84 revised - 9/04/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 31/03/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Hidden J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders - refusal to grant permanent stay of retrial - refusal to order production of documents on subpoena - relevant considerations on stay application

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (s5F)

CASES CITED: Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23
Nye v State of NSW [2002] NSWSC1267
R v Crisologo (1997) 99 ACrim R 178
R v H [2002] NSWCCA 355
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378

PARTIES :
Regina
James Patrick Joyce

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60048/2003

COUNSEL: P Ingram (Crown)
R A Bonnici (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Wesley Community Legal Service (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 92/11/0125

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Dodd DCJ

60048/03

DUNFORD J
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J
8 April, 2003

REGINA v James Patrick JOYCE

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: I agree with Hidden J.

2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Hidden J.

3 HIDDEN J: This is an application under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by Dodd DCJ on 16 and 17 December 2002.

4 The applicant is awaiting retrial upon two charges of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. There had been a trial in May 2002 before Woods DCJ, but the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict in respect of either charge. An application to the Director of Public Prosecutions to discontinue the proceedings was refused. On 16 December 2002 Dodd DCJ heard an application for a permanent stay of the proceedings. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the applicant called upon a subpoena to the Director of Public Prosecutions to produce certain documents but, objection having been taken by the Crown prosecutor, his Honour declined to order production of those documents. On the following day his Honour gave judgment refusing the application for a permanent stay. It is against both those decisions that the present application for leave to appeal is brought.

The first trial

5 The applicant is a medical practitioner. At 8am on Sunday, 4 February 2001 he completed a twelve-hour shift at the emergency department of the Shoalhaven Hospital in Nowra. At about 11am, after going to church and attending to some personal needs, he set off to drive to his home at Wollongong. At a point on the Princes Highway north of Berry his car travelled to the wrong side of the road and collided with an oncoming car, causing injuries to the driver and passenger in that car. He himself was injured.

6 At the first trial evidence was given by two witnesses who were driving their cars behind the applicant’s. Both witnesses observed the applicant’s car…

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 Joyce

Details

AGLC: R v Joyce [2003] NSWCCA 84
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date: 8 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application for leave to appeal by the respondent, Joyce, against certain interlocutory orders made in the course of a criminal trial. The respondent had been charged with multiple counts of perjury and giving false evidence, and faced a retrial after his original trial was quashed on appeal. The application for leave to appeal concerned two specific orders: the refusal to grant a permanent stay of the retrial and the refusal to order the production of certain documents on subpoena. The application was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the trial judge had erred in making these orders.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate criteria for granting a stay of proceedings in a criminal trial and the circumstances under which documents may be compelled to be produced on subpoena. The respondent argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the principles established in earlier High Court cases regarding the granting of stays, and that the refusal to order the production of certain documents was an error of law. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion and that the orders were justified given the nature of the charges and the interests of justice.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed considered the relevant principles when deciding not to grant a permanent stay, and that the respondent had not demonstrated any error on the part of the trial judge. The court also held that the refusal to order the production of certain documents was not an error of law, as the documents were not relevant to the issues in the trial and their production would not have assisted in the fair trial of the respondent. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion and that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and affirmed the interlocutory orders of the trial judge. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant a permanent stay of the retrial and in refusing to order the production of certain documents on subpoena. The court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's discretion in such matters and the need for appellate courts to defer to the trial judge's assessment of the relevant factors. The decision serves as a reminder of the principles that guide the granting of stays in criminal trials and the circumstances in which documents may be compelled to be produced on subpoena.

Orders