HEARING DATE(S): 7 May 2001, 11 May 2001, 16 May 2001
JUDGMENT DATE: 04/06/2001
PARTIES: Regina
v
John Aloysius Littler
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA Greg James J Adams J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 97/11/0330
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Maguire DCJ
COUNSEL: Mr M C Marien (Crown) Mr Greg Walsh (Solicitor) (Applicant)
SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown) Greg Walsh & Co (Applicant)
CATCHWORDS: Stay of proceedings alleged offences occurred 38 to 46 years before trial applicant 74 years old in ill health long and short term memory problems whether relevant if normal directions not capable of ensuring fair trial stay granted
LEGISLATION CITED:
DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, the appeal upheld and further proceedings on the indictments be permanently stayed.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60144/01
HODGSON JA GREG JAMES J ADAMS J
MONDAY 4 JUNE 2001
REGINA v John Aloysius LITTLER
JUDGMENT
HODGSON JA: The circumstances surrounding this application are set out in the judgment of Adams J. I agree with Adams J that there were errors in the way that the primary judge dealt with the medical evidence, although I would characterise the errors slightly differently.
Although the evidence of Dr. Langluddecke and Dr. Westmore was plainly against the view that the applicant was unfit to be tried, this evidence was not, as suggested by the judgment of the primary judge, plainly against the view that his health and memory were such that a trial would be unfair. As Adams J has shown, in some respects their evidence tended to support such a view.
In my opinion also, the trial judge too readily equated the applicant’s ability to remember significant features of his life history with ability to remember matters relevant to a defence of these charges. As Adams J points out, if the applicant is guilty he could be expected to remember the alleged events as significant features of his life, but if he is not guilty (as presently presumed) then matters relevant to a defence of the charges would not be significant features of his life. And the primary judge’s statement that Dr. Westmore “clearly ... did not believe” the applicant’s claim of lack of memory is not in my opinion supported by Dr. Westmore’s evidence. At the close of his oral evidence, Dr. Westmore accepted that there had been no deliberate obfuscation or deliberate misleading by the applicant.
Accordingly, I agree that this Court should consider for itself whether a permanent stay should be granted.
As shown by Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, a permanent stay is a remedy of last resort, only used in most exceptional circumstances, where any trial would involve such oppressive unfairness, incapable of being overcome, that it would be an abuse of process.
In my opinion, an applicant for such an extraordinary remedy bears a heavy onus, and, if…
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 Littler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 173
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Littler involved the accused, Littler, facing trial for historical sexual offences that occurred between 38 and 46 years prior. The matter was heard in a court that held jurisdiction over criminal matters. Littler, now aged 74, was in ill health and suffered from both long and short-term memory issues. The primary legal issue before the court was whether these memory problems, if considered normal for someone of Littler's age, would impede his ability to effectively participate in his defence and whether the directions given by the court could ensure a fair trial.
The court considered the impact of Littler's age and health on his capacity to follow proceedings and engage in his defence. It was determined that, even if the memory problems were typical for someone of his age, they would significantly affect his ability to participate in the trial. The court found that the directions provided were not sufficient to guarantee a fair trial under the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted a stay of proceedings, recognising the potential for substantial prejudice to the accused if the trial proceeded as planned.