Legal Research
Cases
R v MARSHALL

R v MARSHALL

Case [2011] SADC 132 31 August 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application for Stay of Proceedings)
R v MARSHALL
[2011] SADC 132
Ruling and Judgment of His Honour Judge Nicholson
31 August 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS
Permanent stay of criminal proceedings sought by applicant on the basis that their continuation, in the circumstances, would give rise to an abuse of process.
Held: Stay refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, s 269J, s 269J(2), s 269M(5), s 269H, s 269H(b) and (c), s 269O; Crimes Act 1914 s 20B; Evidence Act 1929 s 34CB; District Court (Criminal and Miscellaneous) Rules 1992 Rule 8, referred to.
R v Liddy [2010] SADC 80; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75; Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; R v Ulman-Naruniec [2003] SASC 437; R v PNJ (No. 2) (2007) 99 SASR 1; R v Glynn (2002) 82 SASR 426; Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1, [2004] HCA 51; R v Abdulla (2005) 93 SASR 208; Question of Law Reserved (No. 1 of 1997) (1997) 70 SASR 251; R v Telford (2004) 89 SASR 352; R v WRC [2003] NSWCCA 273; R v Sexton (2000) 77 SASR 405; R v Burns (No. 2) (1999) 154 FLR 190; R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372; R v Cassebohm (2011) 109 SASR 465; [2011] SASCFC 29, considered.

R v MARSHALL
[2011] SADC 132
Introduction

On 21 July 2006 the applicant was found unfit to stand trial in this court, in accordance with the provisions of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“CLCA”), with respect to a number of offences alleged to have been committed against the complainant GU. Two applications to stay the ensuing trial of the objective elements of these alleged offences were heard and refused following which a trial of the objective elements commenced on 7 September 2007. On 1 October 2007 his Honour Judge Clayton delivered Reasons for Verdict in finding the objective elements of one count of buggery and one count of procuring an act of buggery established beyond reasonable doubt. However, his Honour found that the objective elements of three other counts of buggery and two counts of indecent assault had not been established. An order for supervision was made and on 18 December 2007, the applicant was released on licence with a limiting term of 6 years and 6 months commencing on that date.
By information dated 27 July 2009, filed in this court, the applicant has been charged with other alleged offending namely, four counts of buggery of the complainant DQ, one count of indecent assault and one count of buggery of the complainant DJ, one count of indecent…

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 MARSHALL

Details

AGLC: R v Marshall [2011] SADC 132
Case: [2011] SADC 132
Decision Date: 31 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, MARSHALL, was charged with multiple counts of child pornography offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. MARSHALL sought to have the proceedings stayed on the basis of an alleged abuse of process by the prosecution. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution's actions amounted to an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution's conduct in this case constituted an abuse of process. The court considered whether the prosecution had acted in a manner that was oppressive, vexatious or otherwise unfair to the appellant, thus warranting a stay of proceedings. MARSHALL argued that the prosecution had acted in bad faith, disclosing sensitive information to the media, which prejudiced the appellant and deprived him of a fair trial.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the prosecution's conduct and concluded that while there was some evidence of insensitive handling of the case by the prosecution, it did not rise to the level of an abuse of process. The court held that the prosecution's actions, though regrettable, did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial or amount to an oppressive or vexatious use of the court's process. The court found that the allegations of abuse of process were not substantiated and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the court ruled that the proceedings should not be stayed and the case would proceed as scheduled.

Orders