R v Read

[2017] NSWDC 322

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Read [2017] NSWDC 322
Hearing dates:	13 June 2017
Date of orders:	13 June 2017
Decision date:	13 June 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Application for permanent stay of proceedings not granted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Application for permanent stay of proceedings – Claimed abuse of process to put accused on trial – Claim that proceedings foredoomed tofail.
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Steward David Read
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C McPherson – Crown/ Respondent Mr R Bonnici – Applicant / Accused   Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown /Respondent Colleen V Donnelly Solicitor – Applicant / Accused
File Number(s):	2013/347675

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The accused in a trial listed to commence today makes application for a permanent stay of proceedings.

2. The decision whether or not to grant a stay of the prosecution of a criminal offence involves consideration of competing important principles.

3. It is well established that it is in the interests of justice that people charged with criminal offences should be tried. Those charged with criminal offences should not obtain immunities from prosecution. There is a public administration in the due administration of the criminal law. The interests of the accused have to be balanced with those of the community and the community’s right to expect that people charged with criminal offences are brought to trial. The courts will not allow themselves to be instruments or oppression, or allow proceedings to continue where they are abuse of a court’s processes.

4. Mr Bonnici, who appears for Mr Read, sought a stay on a number of grounds. In the course of discussions, I ruled that the grounds which I would consider are those which I have just mentioned, involving questions as to whether proceedings are oppressive or an abuse of the court’s processes.

5. The accused is to be indicted on a count of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. He was charged with that offence some time ago now. After charge, there were committal proceedings. He was committed for trial to the Taree District Court, but his trial was not reached there on two occasions. In order to ensure that his trial was reached on the next occasion, the matter was listed as a special fixture in the Newcastle District Court. A seven day trial before Judge Frearson and a jury was then held. This trial resulted in the jury being unable to agree upon a verdict and they were discharged without verdict.

6. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that defending oneself against a criminal charge is a terribly expensive matter. Mr Read is funding his own legal representation, he does not qualify for legal aid. I have little difficulty in accepting that Mr Read has already spent a great deal of money on his legal representation, especially in circumstances where two earlier trials have been not reached and a trial resulted in a hung jury.

7. And then, of course,…