R v Ridgeway - [2025] NSWSC 691

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ridgeway [2025] NSWSC 691
Hearing dates: 26 June 2025
Date of orders: 26 June 2025
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The trial date of 1 September 2025 is vacated.
(2) The trial will commence on 22 September 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application to vacate trial date – where accused will receive a fair trial - where accused has had a baby since the last trial who will only be four months old at the time of the trial - difficulty in concentrating - steps that can be taken to prevent unfair trial - public interest in finalisation of matter

Cases Cited:
Awad v The Queen (2022) 275 CLR 421; [2022] HCA 36
Ridgeway v R [2024] NSWCCA 85
GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 97 ALJR 857; [2023] HCA 32
Jarvie v The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Brunswick [1995] 1 VR 84
McNamara v The King (2023) 98 ALJR 1; [2023] HCA 36

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Lily Ridgeway (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Young (Crown)
Mr P Krisenthal (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00068218
Publication restriction: Nil.

judgment (REVISED FROM EX TEMPORE)

The accused, Lily Ridgeway, is charged with one count of manslaughter. It is alleged that on 29 February 2020 she did, by dangerous and unlawful act, kill Jason Adams. Her trial is currently listed for hearing in the Newcastle Supreme Court for three weeks commencing on 1 September 2025.
By notice of motion filed on 10 June 2025, the accused seeks that her trial date be vacated.
Regrettably, this matter has had a long procedural history none of which is the fault of the accused. The accused was arrested on 1 March 2020 and charged with murder on that date and refused bail. On 17 May 2021, her trial commenced before Wilson J and a jury sitting in the Supreme Court at Newcastle. On 11 June 2021, the accused was acquitted of Mr Adams' murder. The jury was hung on the alternate count of manslaughter.
On Monday, 31 January 2022, a second trial commenced before Wilson J and a jury in the Newcastle Supreme Court. The jury retired to consider its verdict before lunch time on the Friday of that week. On 8 February 2022, the accused was found guilty of manslaughter.
On 27 May 2022, the accused was sentenced by Wilson J to a term of imprisonment of 7 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 5 years to date from 29 November 2020.
The accused subsequently appealed her conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal. On 3 May 2024, her conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered: see Ridgeway v R [2024] NSW CCA 85. She was subsequently granted bail and has been on…

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 Ridgeway

Details

AGLC: R v Ridgeway [2025] NSWSC 691
Case: [2025] NSWSC 691
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina v Ridgeway, the respondent applied to vacate the date for the trial of the applicant on the basis that she will be unable to receive a fair trial due to the recent birth of her child, who will only be four months old at the time of the trial. The application was made to the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent would be able to receive a fair trial given the recent birth of her child, and if so, what steps could be taken to ensure this.

The court considered the difficulty the respondent would have in concentrating on the trial given the young age of her child, and the potential impact this could have on her defence. The court noted that the public interest in the finalisation of the matter was also a relevant consideration. In determining the matter, the court held that it was possible for the respondent to receive a fair trial, and that there were steps that could be taken to mitigate any difficulties that may arise due to the young age of her child. The court considered the appointment of a suitable person to care for the child during the trial, the use of a video link to allow the respondent to remain with her child where necessary, and the potential for a shorter trial schedule to reduce the impact on the respondent.

The court determined that these measures, coupled with the respondent's willingness to make arrangements to ensure she could participate fully in the trial, were sufficient to ensure a fair trial could be held. The application to vacate the trial date was therefore dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all parties, while also considering the public interest in the finalisation of the matter. No further orders were made.

Orders