R v Lacey and Lacey

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lacey and Lacey [2009] QDC 303

PARTIES:

The Queen

v

Dionne Mathew Lacey

And

Jade Michael Lacey

(Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment 2783/08

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application for indemnity certificates pursuant to s 22(1)(c) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2009

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

Applications by the defendants for indemnity certificates pursuant to s 22(1)(c) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Adjournment of trial – whether trial discontinued and new trial ordered so as to engage application of Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973

COUNSEL:

M R Byrne for the Crown

P J Callaghan SC for D M Lacey

N J Macgroarty for J M Lacey

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

Nyst Lawyers for both defendants

Introduction

1. The defendants seek indemnity certificates pursuant to s 22(1)(c) Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 consequent upon the adjournment of their trial that was listed to commence on 24 August 2009. 

1. The defendants are each charged with assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company, extortion, threatening violence, torture, malicious act with intent and deprivation of liberty arising from events alleged to have occurred on 22 April 2007.

1. The trial was listed to commence on 24 August 2009 for an estimated duration of three to four weeks.

1. On the morning of Friday, 21 August 2009 my associate was contacted by the solicitors for the defendants foreshadowing an application for an adjournment of the trial to be made the following Monday morning.

1. In view of the potential inconvenience to jurors, witnesses and others, my associate contacted the solicitors for the defendants requesting that the matter be listed for mention later that day. 

1. The matter was mentioned at 2.30 pm on 21 August 2009.  Mr P J Callaghan SC appeared for both defendants.  One issue raised by Mr Callaghan SC in support of the adjournment application was the fact that the judgment of the Court of Appeal arising from the trial of the defendants in the Supreme Court was pending and it was possible that it would be delivered during the course of this trial with resultant media publicity.  That issue had earlier been raised by me[1].  It was not suggested at that time by any party that this should result in an adjournment of the trial.  The other issue raised by Mr Callaghan SC which he described as “more substantive”[2] related to additional material provided by the Crown, the effect of which significantly changed the complexion of the trial.  Mr Callaghan SC candidly stated that the defence had “underestimated seriously the task involved”[3] in dealing with the additional evidence.  He said there was “an element of … bravado”[4] in the assumption that the defence would be ready to proceed to trial on 24 August 2009. 

   [1]Transcript 13 August 2009 p 6 Line 25.

   [2]Transcript 21 August 2009 p 5 Line 5.

   [3]Transcript…