R v Medich (No 3)

The appellant, Medich, was convicted of a number of serious criminal offences, including offences related to fraud. The dispute concerned whether the trial judge erred in failing to adjourn the trial in circumstances where the appellant had no legal representation and was subject to orders of the Family Court freezing his assets. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge was obliged to adjourn the trial in the absence of counsel and where the appellant’s assets were frozen. The court considered the extent of the trial judge’s discretion to adjourn a trial, the requirements of procedural fairness, and the circumstances in which an adjournment may be required to ensure a fair trial. The court concluded that there was no error in the trial judge’s decision not to adjourn the trial. The court held that there was no point of principle that required the trial judge to adjourn the trial in the circumstances of this case. The court found that the trial judge was not obliged to adjourn the trial in the absence of counsel and where the appellant’s assets were frozen. The court also found that the trial judge’s directions were sufficient to ensure a fair trial. The orders of the High Court of Australia were that the appeal be dismissed.