Legal Research
Cases
R v McGee

R v McGee

Case [2008] SADC 8 14 February 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCGEE & ANOR
[2008] SADC 8
Reasons of His Honour Judge Robertson
14 February 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS - IN GENERAL
Charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - principles applicable.
Applications for a permanent stay - abuse of process - general principles.
Principle of incontrovertibility - pleas of guilty for failing to stop and failing to render assistance in earlier criminal proceedings - determination of facts made by sentencing judge in sentencing proceedings - Crown seeking to challenge those findings in these proceedings - whether the principle of incontrovertibility applies - alternatively, whether prosecution is vexatious, oppressive and unfair.
Extensive publicity relating to earlier Trial and sentencing of Applicant, Eugene McGee - further extensive publicity arising from the Kapunda Road Royal Commission - some of the publicity disparaging and adverse of Applicant, Eugene McGee - question whether there is a substantial risk the Applicants will not receive a fair trial as a result of pre-trial publicity - principles applicable - application for a permanent stay.
Prosecution of charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - permanent stay sought on basis prosecution is foredoomed to fail - principles applicable - Crown case relies upon circumstantial evidence - inferences sought to be drawn by the Crown - whether the prosecution is foredoomed to fail.
Application for a permanent stay - allegation that Crown not followed rule of practice by charging conspiracy and not substantive offence - whether an abuse of process.
Held: Applications for permanent stay of prosecution refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss19A(1), 243, 256, 270; Road Traffic Act 1961 ss43(1), 45, 47E(1); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s6, referred to.
The Queen v Rogerson (1991-1992) 174 CLR 268; Jago v The District Court of New South Wales (1989-1990) 168 CLR 23; Williams v Spautz (1991-1992) 174 CLR 509; Walton v Gardiner (1992-1993) 177 CLR 378; Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; Island Maritime Limited v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; The Queen v Carroll (2002-2003) 213 CLR 635; Gilham v The Queen (2007) NSWCCA 323; Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 236 ALR 209; Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; Moevao v Department of Labour (1980) 1 NZLR 464; The Queen v Glennon (1991-1992) 173 CLR 592; The Queen v Smith (1995) 1 VR 10; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; Barca v The Queen (1974-1975) 133 CLR 82; The Queen v Debelis (1983-1984) 36 SASR 1, applied.
The Queen v Gilham NSWSC: Unreported Judgment (Howie J) delivered 21 March 2007; Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264; R v Palaga (2001) 80 SASR 19; Salmat Document Management Solutions Pty Ltd v The Queen (2006) 199 FLR 46

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 McGee

Details

AGLC: R v McGee [2008] SADC 8
Case: [2008] SADC 8
Decision Date: 14 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v McGee came before the court, involving a dispute related to the alleged abuse of process in criminal proceedings. The respondent, McGee, sought a stay of proceedings against the applicant, the Crown, asserting that the proceedings were being conducted in an abusive manner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining the validity of McGee's claim and deciding whether the proceedings should be stayed.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the Crown's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, thereby warranting a stay of the proceedings. The court also needed to consider the threshold for establishing an abuse of process in criminal cases and assess whether the criteria for granting a stay had been met. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the impact of the alleged abuse on the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

The court found that the Crown's conduct did not amount to an abuse of process. It held that for a stay to be granted, the process must have been used for an ulterior purpose or to achieve an improper end, which was not present in this case. The court further noted that the allegations of abuse were based on perceived procedural irregularities rather than a misuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court denied the application for a stay of proceedings, holding that the proceedings should continue as scheduled.

Orders