R v Medich (No 6) - [2016] NSWSC 1001

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medich (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1001
Hearing dates: 11 July 2016; 20 July 2016
Date of orders: 25 July 2016
Decision date: 25 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) The jury is discharged.
(2) The trial date is vacated.
(3) The solicitor for the accused is to file with my Associate, no later than 5:00 pm on 25 July 2016, subpoenas directed to the following:
(a) The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (formerly the Australian Crime Commission);
(b) The New South Wales Police;
(c) The New South Wales Crime Commission; and
(d) The Department of Justice (Corrective Services New South Wales).
(4) The subpoenas in (3) above are to be made returnable before me on Monday 8 August, 2016 at 9:15am.
(5) The matter is listed for further directions before me on Monday 8 August at 9:15am.
(6) The non-publication order previously made in these proceedings is varied so as to allow the publication of:
(i) this judgment;
(ii) the proceedings before the Court on 25 July 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Application to vacate trial - Obligations of disclosure – Deceased killed in 2009 – Accused charged with murder and intimidation in 2010 – Where certain events came to the attention of police in 2013 – Where those events were material to significant issues in the accused’s trial – Where events were investigated by a designated task force in 2013 and 2014 – Where members of that task force did not include officers engaged in the investigation of the deceased’s murder - Voluminous material obtained by the end of 2014 – Where police investigating the deceased’s murder and the Crown sought the material between 2014 and 2016 – Where some of the material was disclosed to the police investigating the deceased’s murder in about mid June 2016 – Entirety of material provided to those police after that time - Where the entirety of the material was not provided to the Crown until early July 2016 - Where material was disclosed to the accused on the morning of the first day of his trial in July 2016 – Where the disclosure of the material necessitated an adjournment of the trial to allow the material to be analysed – Where the nature of the material gave rise to the need to issue a number of subpoenas and make further pre-trial applications – No evidence was placed before the Court to attempt to explain the reasons behind the delay in the material being disclosed - Where the trial was not in a position to proceed as a result of late disclosure – Trial vacated – Jury discharged – Orders made to facilitate the immediate progress of the matter with a view to setting a new trial date – Observations as to the importance of adherence to disclosure obligations and the consequences of the late vacation of trials
Legislation Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986…

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 Medich (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Medich (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1001
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1001
Decision Date: 25 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application by the accused to vacate the trial, focusing on issues of disclosure in a criminal proceeding. The accused, Medich, was charged with the murder and intimidation of a deceased individual who was killed in 2009. Medich was charged in 2010, but certain events pertinent to the case came to light in 2013, prompting an investigation by a designated task force. The court was tasked with deciding whether the significant delays in disclosing the investigation material to the accused, which occurred on the first day of the trial, warranted vacating the trial and discharging the jury.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the obligations of disclosure in criminal proceedings, particularly the timeliness and completeness of disclosure to the accused. The court had to consider whether the late disclosure of material, which was not provided to the Crown until early July 2016, despite its availability to the police investigating the murder since mid-June 2016, constituted a breach of the accused's rights. The court also needed to determine if the late disclosure was so prejudicial as to necessitate the vacation of the trial and the discharge of the jury.

The court found that the police's failure to disclose the material promptly and in its entirety, combined with the significant impact this had on the trial's progression, justified the vacation of the trial. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to disclosure obligations and the potential consequences of late disclosure, such as the inability to proceed with the trial. Consequently, the trial was vacated, the jury was discharged, and orders were made to expedite the progress of the matter with a view to setting a new trial date. The court's decision underscored the critical nature of timely and comprehensive disclosure in criminal proceedings.

Orders