Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medich (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1842 Hearing dates: 15, 16, 17, 22 July 2014Written submissions: 11 September, 18 September 2014 Date of orders: 30 September 2014 Decision date: 30 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Bellew J Decision: 1) The applicant’s notice of motion dated 18 June 2014 is dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for permanent stay of proceedings - applicant charged with murder – where applicant appeared before NSW Crime Commission for compulsory examination prior to being charged – whether police presence at compulsory examination and associated events warranted a permanent stay Legislation Cited: Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985Cases Cited: Barton v R [1980] HCA 48; (1980) 147 CLR 75
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256
Boulos v R [2008] NSWCCA 119
Dupas v R [2010] HCA 20; (2010) 241 CLR 237
Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23
Lee and anor. v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39; (2013) 302 ALR 363
Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 308 ALR 252
QAAB v Australian Crime Commission [2014] FCA 747
R v CB; MP v R [2011] NSWCCA 264;
R v Edwards [2009] HCA 20; (2009) 83 ALJR 717
R v Gattellari; R v Kaminic [2013] NSWSC 1097
R v Glennon [1992] HCA 16; (1992) 173 CLR 592
R v Medich (No. 1) [2014] NSWSC 1013
R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2013] NSWCCA 42; (2013) 273 FLR 155
R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2012] NSWSC 934; (2012) 269 FLR 125
R v X [2014] NSWCCA 168
X7 v Australian Crime Commission & Anor [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ronald Edward Medich – Applicant/Accused
Crown - RespondentRepresentation: Counsel:
Mr N Williams SC, Ms A Francis and Mr B Mostafa - Applicant/AccusedMs W Abraham QC and Ms J Davidson – Respondent/Crown
Solicitors:
Colin Daley Quinn – Applicant/Accused Crown Solicitor for New South Wales – Crown/Respondent
File Number(s): 2010/356916 Publication restriction: Nil
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The Crown case
[9]
The Defence case
[11]
THE EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The establishment of Strike Force Narrunga
[12]
Reference of the investigation to the NSW Crime Commission
[16]
The Summons issued to the applicant to attend the Commission
[17]
The applicant’s appearance before the Commission
[21]
The presence of the police at the applicant’s examination
[35]
The debrief following the applicant’s evidence
[41]
Subsequent discussions about the applicant’s evidence
[43]
The release of the transcript of the applicant’s evidence
[48]
The tasks created by Det. Fitzhenry
[50]
Access to the transcript of the applicant’s evidence by police
[59]
The search warrants obtained by Det. Howe
[60]
Continue reading R v Medich (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Medich (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1842
- Case
- [2014] NSWSC 1842
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the nature of the compulsory examination, the role of police, and the rights of the accused under the law. It examined whether the police presence and their conduct during the examination were reasonable and whether they adhered to the legal framework governing such proceedings. The court also weighed the potential impact of any improper conduct on Medich's right to a fair trial. Ultimately, the court found that the police presence and actions did not reach the threshold of impropriety that would warrant a permanent stay of the proceedings. The court concluded that while there were procedural irregularities, these did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial to the extent necessary for a permanent stay.
The court's decision rejected Medich's application for a permanent stay, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. The reasoning provided focused on the balance between procedural safeguards and the need to bring those suspected of serious crimes to justice. The court emphasised that while procedural errors can have serious consequences, they must be significant enough to affect the fundamental fairness of the trial. The court's ruling ensured that the process of justice would proceed, subject to any necessary corrective measures to address the identified irregularities.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.