R v Moore - [2025] NSWDC 436

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Moore [2025] NSWDC 436
Decision date: 27 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Everson SC DCJ
Decision:
The application for a permanent stay of proceedings is refused.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Re-trial on new Indictment – Stay of proceedings – Permanent – motion to permanently stay proceedings refused.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Abdallah v R [2019] NSWCCA 294
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Browne [2018] NSWCCA 188
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592
Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23
Kibby v R [2024] NSWCCA 207
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Darryl Moore (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr W Martin (Crown)
Mr S Doupe (Accused)
Solicitor:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Michel + White Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00032429
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings Act) 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication of the name of or any information that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant.

JUDGMENT

On 26 February 2024, Darryl Moore stood trial on an indictment containing two counts, each of which alleged an offence against the same complainant.
The 1^st count alleged that on a day between 18 October 2019 and 8 June 2021 at Oxley Vale, the accused intentionally carried out a sexual act towards a cognitively impaired male child who was aged between 10 and 16 years.
The 2^nd count alleged that on a day in January 2022 at Coonabarabran, the accused had sexual intercourse with a cognitively impaired male child who was aged between 10 and 14 years. The complainant in the first count and the complainant in the second count are one and the same person.
That trial did not conclude as the jury was discharged before the close of the Crown case.
On 18 November 2024, the accused was again called to trial on the same indictment presented against him on 26 February 2024. On 27 November 2024, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the 1st count. The following day the jury indicated they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the 2nd count. Nor were they subsequently able to reach a majority verdict. The jury was thereafter discharged without rendering a verdict on the 2nd count.
The trial of the accused on that now single count indictment was subsequently listed to commence today, 27 October 2025, during the current sittings of this court at Tamworth.
On 15 October 2025, the solicitor for the accused filed a Notice of Motion seeking an order permanently staying the proceedings the subject of the trial due to commence today. In the alternative, the accused seeks an order that the trial be conducted by judge sitting without a jury pursuant to…

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 Moore

Details

AGLC: R v Moore [2025] NSWDC 436
Case: [2025] NSWDC 436
Decision Date: 27 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Moore, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following an appeal and subsequent quashing of the conviction, a new trial was ordered. The respondent applied for a permanent stay of proceedings on the grounds that the delay in bringing the case to trial was excessive and prejudicial to the appellant. The Court of Appeal considered whether the delay was such that a retrial would be oppressive and whether the application for a permanent stay of proceedings should be granted.

The central legal issues revolved around the assessment of whether the delay in the retrial was unreasonable and whether the prejudicial effect of this delay on the appellant's right to a fair trial outweighed the public interest in the prosecution of the crime. The court examined the criteria for determining oppressive delay and the factors that should be considered in making this assessment.

The Court of Appeal held that while there had been a significant delay in bringing the case to trial, it was not so excessive as to render a retrial oppressive. The court found that the delay was primarily due to the appellant's actions in pursuing appeals and that the prejudicial effect of the delay on the appellant's right to a fair trial was not sufficient to warrant a permanent stay of proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the public interest in the prosecution of serious crimes and the need to balance this with the rights of the accused.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for a permanent stay of proceedings, allowing the retrial to proceed. The court acknowledged the delay but found that it did not reach the threshold of oppressiveness required to permanently stay the proceedings. The case will now proceed to a new trial, ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair trial is upheld while also respecting the public interest in the prosecution of the crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for a permanent stay of proceedings is refused.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Moore [2025] NSWDC 436
Decision date:	27 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Everson SC DCJ
Decision:	The application for a permanent stay of proceedings is refused.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Re-trial on new Indictment – Stay of proceedings – Permanent – motion to permanently stay proceedings refused.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Abdallah v R [2019] NSWCCA 294 Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Browne [2018] NSWCCA 188 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 Kibby v R [2024] NSWCCA 207 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Darryl Moore (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr W Martin (Crown) Mr S Doupe (Accused) Solicitor: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Michel + White Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2022/00032429
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings Act) 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication of the name of or any information that identifies or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant.