R v Robert Francis Agius - [2011] NSWSC 982

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Robert Francis Agius [2011] NSWSC 982
Hearing dates: 25/08/2011
Decision date: 31 August 2011
Before: Simpson J at 1
Decision:
Application for separate trial dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - application for separate trial - delay - bail conditions - estimated length of trial - nature of the Crown case - evidence to be tendered against each accused - no basis for separate trial made out - application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Abibadra v The Queen; Jandagi v The Queen; Zerafa v The Queen; Agius v The Queen [2011] HCA Trans 171
Domican v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 24
R v Agius & Ors [2011] NSWCCA 119
R v Agius & Ors [2011] NSWSC 367
R v Baladjan & Ors [2008] NSWSC 1471
Webb v The Queen [1994] HCA 30; 181 CLR 41
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Robert Francis Agius (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
I Barker QC with him P Coady (Applicant)
P Neil SC with him S McNaughton (Respondent/Crown)
Solicitors
Greg Murray Law (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) (Respondent/Crown)

File Number(s): 08/45500; 08/245425

Judgment

By notice of motion filed on 11 August 2011 the applicant, Robert Francis Agius, seeks an order for a separate trial of two counts of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, in respect of which he is jointly indicted with three others (Kevin Zerafa, Carol Abibadra and Deborah Jandagi). No evidence was filed in support of the application. What follows as factual background is drawn from what I have gleaned over the past six months in dealing with this case, and what is asserted in written submissions filed on behalf of Mr Agius. No issue has been taken as to the accuracy of the factual substratum of the application.

Background

The proceedings have already a lengthy history. Mr Agius was, I was told, arrested on 28 April 2008 in Perth. An order was made that he be taken to Sydney. Bail was then refused, but was granted on 6 May 2008 on specified conditions, including the lodging of a substantial security and, importantly for the present application, that he remain in Australia. (He is said to be a resident of Vanuatu.) He was released on bail on 28 May 2008.

Since August 2008, a succession of orders has been made concerning service of the prosecution brief. The written submissions suggest that this process was very recently completed. A vast amount of documentary material has been served. The parties, I understand, are negotiating with a view to reducing the amount of documentary material it will be necessary to introduce into evidence.

On 18 May 2010, Mr Agius was committed for trial in this Court. On 3 October 2010 he and the three co-accused were arraigned in this Court and the trial fixed to commence on 27 April 2011. It had then an estimated duration of 12 weeks. (It had previously been given an estimated duration of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Robert Francis Agius and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 982
Decision Date: 31 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robert Francis Agius was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Robert Agius sought a separate trial from his co-accused. The dispute centred around the timing of the request for a separate trial, the implications of delay, and the specific conditions attached to Agius' bail. The Crown case involved a serious criminal charge, necessitating a detailed disclosure of the evidence against each accused. The court was required to determine whether the application for a separate trial was justified given the circumstances, including the length of the estimated trial, the nature of the Crown's case, and the evidence that would be tendered against each defendant.

The court carefully considered the timing of Agius' application for a separate trial, noting that it was made late in the proceedings. It also examined the implications of the delay on the administration of justice and the rights of the co-accused. Furthermore, the court evaluated the conditions of Agius' bail and whether they were sufficient to ensure his appearance at trial. The Crown argued that the application for a separate trial was not supported by any compelling reason, and that the evidence against Agius and his co-accused was closely intertwined, making a separate trial inappropriate. The court ultimately found that the application for a separate trial was not substantiated, given the timing, the nature of the evidence, and the potential prejudice to the co-accused.

In dismissing the application, the court emphasised the importance of timely applications for separate trials and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The court concluded that there was no compelling reason to grant a separate trial, and that proceeding with a joint trial was in the interests of justice. The decision underscored the necessity for clear and compelling reasons to warrant a separate trial, particularly when the evidence against the accused is closely linked. The court's ruling upheld the integrity of the judicial process and maintained the rights of all parties involved.

Orders