R v Luciano Marchi, Philip Marchi and Neville John Leslie Mead No. SCCRM 96/279 Judgment No. 5963 Number of Pages 10 Criminal Law and Procedure (1996) 67 Sasr 368

Luciano Marchi, Philip Marchi and Neville John Leslie Mead were charged with manslaughter and creating risk of harm related to an outbreak of Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome (HUS) in South Australia in 1995, allegedly caused by the consumption of contaminated fermented meat products produced by Garibaldi Smallgoods Pty Ltd. The three defendants applied to stay the proceedings on the information on the basis that they lacked the means to engage legal representation for the trial. They argued that the costs of legal representation, including the retainer of expert witnesses, would be substantial and far exceed their respective means.

The court considered the legal principles established by the High Court in Dietrich v Regina, which state that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the trial of an indigent accused charged with a serious offence should be adjourned or stayed until legal representation is available. The court found that the accused were indigent and unable to obtain legal representation through no fault of their own. The offences were deemed serious, and none of the accused had the skills necessary to conduct their own defence, particularly considering the complexity of the charges and the large volume of evidentiary material involved in the trial.

Given the circumstances, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to deflect from making the order proposed. Therefore, the proper course was to stay the proceedings on the information until further order. The court emphasized the importance of the government determining whether it would provide the necessary funds to enable the accused to conduct their defences to the charges. The trial was set to commence on 24 February 1997, but the stay would remain in place unless and until an appropriate level of funding was made available.

The court's decision was based on the principles set out in Dietrich and the specific circumstances of the case, including the accused's lack of means to engage legal representation, the seriousness of the charges, and the absence of exceptional circumstances. The court's stay of proceedings allowed for the possibility of government funding to enable the accused to conduct their defences to the charges, ensuring a fair trial in accordance with the principles established by the High Court.