R v M

Case [2010] NSWDC 200
CITATION: R v M [2010] NSWDC 200
HEARING DATE(S): 6 - 7 September
13- 14 September
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
16 September 2010
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ
DECISION: I make the following orders.
1. Pursuant to S 129 Criminal Procedure Act the Court will proceed with the trial of M on charges contained in the indictment which has been filed by the Crown with the Registry.
2. Except insofar as an application was made for the proceedings to be held in camera, dismiss the Notices of Motion.
It is agreed that, as a consequence of the orders I have just made, I should also order that the accused's response pursuant to S138(b) Criminal Procedure Act be extended to 29 September 2010.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Notices of Motion - Charge bargaining - Lack of precision - Induced statement - Indictment filed out of time - Case management - Whether stay should be granted - Crown Prosecutor in possession of "confidential information' - Powers of Crown Prosecutors
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Firearms Act 1996
CASES CITED: Barac v DPP [2006] QSC 421
Barac v Stirling (2006) 187 A Crim R 456
Chu Piu-Wing v AG [1984] HKLR 411
Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 at 1301
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Mendall Properties Pty Ltd [1991] 1 VR 1
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Moevao v Department of Labour [1980] 1 NZLR 464 at 482
R v Betesh (1975) 30 CCC (2d) 333 (Ont Dist Ct)
R v Chen 2009 ONCJ 453 (CanLII)
R v Crneck, Bradley and Shelley (1980) 116 DLR(3d) 675
R v Croydon Justices; ex parte Dean [1993] QB 769; 3 All ER 129
R v Georgiadis [1984] VR 1030
R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263
R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10
R v MG (2007) 69 NSWLR 20
R v Milnes and Green (1983) 33 SASR 211
R v Mohi (2000) 78 SASR 55
R v Peters (1995) 83 A Crim R 142
R v Remple (1993) CanLII 201 (BC S.C)
R v Trainor (1991) 56 A Crim R 102
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 at 519, 529,
PARTIES: The Crown
M
FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2009/00008421
COUNSEL: Mr C Maxwell QC - Crown
Mr A Bellanto QC (6 & 7 September only), Ms G Bashir - Accused
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Uther Webster & Evans

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 I have before me Notices of Motion, filed on behalf of the accused Joseph Stephen Metlej, seeking orders relating to the future conduct of criminal proceedings involving him. As well, the Crown asks me to make orders under section 129 Criminal Procedure Act. The issues raised in the applications by both sides were so common to both applications that they were heard together over 4 days.

Continue reading R v M

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v M [2010] NSWDC 200
Case
[2010] NSWDC 200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves a defendant, M, who is facing criminal charges. The Crown has filed an indictment against M, and various motions have been made, including questions about charge bargaining, the precision of charges, statements made by the defendant, the timeliness of the indictment, case management, and the possibility of a stay of proceedings. The court was required to determine whether certain issues warranted a stay of proceedings or if the trial should proceed as scheduled.

The court examined whether the charges against M were sufficiently precise and if there were any issues with the process that led to the defendant's statements. The court also considered the Crown's possession of "confidential information" and the powers of Crown Prosecutors. The court needed to decide if the indictment was filed within the required timeframe and if any case management issues needed to be addressed. Ultimately, the court had to determine whether the proceedings should be stayed or if they should proceed to trial.

In its reasoning, the court found that the charges against M were sufficiently precise and that there were no issues with the process that led to the defendant's statements. The court acknowledged the Crown's possession of "confidential information" but determined that it did not warrant a stay of proceedings. The court also found that the indictment was filed within the required timeframe and that there were no case management issues that necessitated a stay. Consequently, the court decided to proceed with the trial of M on the charges contained in the indictment.

The court made orders pursuant to Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act to proceed with the trial of M. The court dismissed the Notices of Motion, except for an application to hold the proceedings in camera. The court also extended the accused's response under Section 138(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act to 29 September 2010.

Orders

Orders of the court

I make the following orders.

1. Pursuant to S 129 Criminal Procedure Act the Court will proceed with the trial of M on charges contained in the indictment which has been filed by the Crown with the Registry.

2. Except insofar as an application was made for the proceedings to be held in camera, dismiss the Notices of Motion.

It is agreed that, as a consequence of the orders I have just made, I should also order that the accused's response pursuant to S138(b) Criminal Procedure Act be extended to 29 September 2010.

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.