Legal Research
Cases
R v Rosamond

R v Rosamond

Case [2021] NSWDC 677 29 October 2021

Fraud

Stay of Proceedings

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rosamond [2021] NSWDC 677
Hearing dates: 25 October 2021; 27 October 2021
Date of orders: 29 October 2021
Decision date: 29 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Sutherland SC
Decision:
Application for temporary stay dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – fraud – application for temporary stay – voluminous expert report – funding for senior and junior counsel

Cases Cited:
Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; 177 CLR 292; 199 ALR 385
Hamilton v DPP [2012] NSWSC 1365
Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 87 ALR 577
Jago v the Queen (1989) 168 CLR 23
Kolalich v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 237
NAB v Human Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1404
National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1900
R v Edwards [2009] HCA 20
R v George Adler (Unreported, NSWCCA 11 June 1992)
R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173
R v Seller and McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; (2015) 89 NSWLR 155
R v Stringer [2000] NSWCCA 293
R v Tolmie (Unreported, NSWCCA 7 December 1994)
R v Warwick (No 64) [2019] NSWSC 163
R v Warwick (No 69) [2019] NSWSC 1059
Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378
Wong v R [2001] WASCA 32

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Helen Mary Rosamond (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hughes (Applicant)
K Prince (Respondent)
Solicitors:
AA Criminal Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00067521
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is an application by Helen Rosamond seeking a stay of proceedings in relation to a criminal trial in which she faces a substantial number of allegations of fraud, broadly described. The application is brought by way of Notice of Motion dated 7 October 2021 and is supported by an affidavit of her solicitor, Mr Arthur Aguirre, similarly dated 7 October 2021. The trial is presently fixed to commence in the Sydney District Court on 25 July 2022 with an estimate of 4 months.
In order to give consideration to the application it is necessary to provide an overview of the background to the prosecution.
The Crown allegation, put succinctly, is that over a period of 5 to 6 years, there was a systematic defrauding of the National Australia Bank (NAB) by Ms Rosamond and her alleged co-offender, Ms Rosemary Rogers. The total amount of the alleged fraud would appear to have been in the vicinity of $25 million.
The Crown Case Statement indicates that an event management company, Human Group Pty Ltd, provided services to the National Australia Bank whereby they organised and managed events and functions for the bank over approximately a twelve-year period. The detail of the services provided is not of direct relevance for present purposes but it suffices to note that during the twelve-year period, NAB paid in excess of $118.6 million to the Human Group for the provision of such services.
At relevant…

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 Rosamond

Details

AGLC: R v Rosamond [2021] NSWDC 677
Case: [2021] NSWDC 677
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rosamond involved the respondent, Rosamond, who was facing charges of fraud. The respondent applied for a temporary stay of the trial to allow time to obtain and review an extensive expert report, as well as to fund the necessary legal representation. The application was made to the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the need for the expert report and the funding of senior and junior counsel justified a temporary stay of the trial proceedings.

The court examined the circumstances under which a temporary stay might be granted, emphasising the importance of the trial's expeditiousness and the principle that stays should not be granted lightly. It noted that the respondent had ample time to prepare the expert report and had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a stay. The court also considered the public interest in the prompt resolution of criminal matters. Given these factors, the court found that the application did not meet the threshold for a temporary stay. The court dismissed the application, holding that the respondent's need for additional time and resources did not sufficiently outweigh the interests of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for temporary stay dismissed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Rosamond [2021] NSWDC 677

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2020] NSWSC 1900 Para 30

…cting on behalf of the National Australia Bank are set out in a further judgment of Henry J: National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1900.…
National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd
[2019] NSWSC 1404 Para 26

…d the civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against Ms Rosamond. A copy of her Honour’s judgment, NAB v Human Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1404, has also been tendered in the present application as an annexure to the principal affidavit relied upon under the hand of the applicant’s solicitor, M…
R v Warwick (No 69)
[2019] NSWSC 1059 Para 67

…l trial were sought during the course of a trial were dealt with by Garling J in R v Warwick (No 64) [2019] NSWSC 163 and also in R v Warwick (No 69) [2019] NSWSC 1059 per Fullerton J. The circumstance in which a temporary stay was sought before Fullerton J arose as a consequence of a Mr Warwick having terminated th…
R v Warwick (No 64)
[2019] NSWSC 163 Para 67

…cumstances in which a temporary stay of a criminal trial were sought during the course of a trial were dealt with by Garling J in R v Warwick (No 64) [2019] NSWSC 163 and also in R v Warwick (No 69) [2019] NSWSC 1059 per Fullerton J. The circumstance in which a temporary stay was sought before Fullerton J arose as…
R v Seller; R v McCarthy
[2015] NSWSC 1315 Para 60

…Bathurst CJ, with whom Bellew J had agreed, in R v Seller and McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; (2015) 89 NSWLR 155 dealt with a refusal by a primary judge to grant either a permanent or a temporary stay. Seller and McCarthy had been the subject of examinations by the Australian Crime Commission, which examinations were comp…
R v Seller
[2015] NSWCCA 76 Para 60

…Bathurst CJ, with whom Bellew J had agreed, in R v Seller and McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; (2015) 89 NSWLR 155 dealt with a refusal by a primary judge to grant either a permanent or a temporary stay. Seller and McCarthy had been the subject of examinations by the Australian Crime Commission, which examinations were c…
Hamilton v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2012] NSWSC 1365 Para 84

…In the Crown’s written submissions, reference was also made to Hamilton v DPP [2012] NSWSC 1365. The peculiar circumstances of that case related to the exclusion from the Local Court during the hearing of evidence from a complainant in an allegation of sexual assault, of the defendant’s son, who was a solicitor and…
R v Edwards
[2009] HCA 20 Para 78

…In R v Edwards [2009] HCA 20, the High Court set aside an order for a permanent stay of proceedings which had been made in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. In the Supreme Court, the trial judge had held that the overall delay in proceedings being commenced, together with the absence and loss of significant primary…
Re K
[2002] NSWCCA 374 Para 59

…different considerations to those in which a permanent stay might be granted. He relies upon the observations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374 where the court, per Beazley JA, Sully and Simpson JJ, granted a temporary stay of a trial in the District Court as a consequence of adverse publicit…
R v Littler
[2001] NSWCCA 173 Para 68

…In R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173, alleged sexual assaults which were variously said to have occurred as early as 1955 and as late as 1963 were said to have resulted in prejudice which fell into three main classes. The first concerned the unavailability of numerous potential witnesses who were dead, demented, or othe…
Wong v The Queen
[2001] WASCA 32 Para 82

…taining of junior counsel as well as senior counsel, would not, of itself, warrant the granting of a stay, either temporary or permanent. In Wong v R [2001] WASCA 32, the trial of the accused had continued in circumstances where he withdrew the retainer of the legally-aided junior barrister who had been briefed at…
R v Stringer
[2000] NSWCCA 293 Para 73

…Such circumstances were different in R v Stringer [2000] NSWCCA 293 where the issue at the proposed trial was whether sexual activity between consenting males had occurred before or after the complainant had turned 18 years of age. The District Court trial judge, Shillington DCJ, had made an order permanently stayin…
R v Hatfield
[1999] NSWCCA 340

…; R v Goldberg unreported CCA 23 February 1993; R v McCarthy unreported CCA 12 August 1994; R v Tolmie unreported CCA 7 December 1994; R v Hatfield [1999] NSWCCA 340. 12 Every case must nevertheless be determined in the context of its own facts and there is undoubted jurisdiction to stay proceedings to prevent unfai…
R v Small
[1998] QCA 380

…r of discretion, after a balancing of the competing interests, the stay ought be granted to secure that representation would arise (see R v Small (1994) 33 NSWLR 575 at 590-591).”…
Walton v Gardiner
[1993] HCA 77 Para 51

…In Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378, the majority, per Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ, clearly indicated that the types of injustice which may justify a stay of proceedings of a criminal prosecution were not closed. Their Honours said that the jurisdiction to stay proceedings on grounds of abus…
Dietrich v The Queen
[1992] HCA 57 Para 48

…As articulated by Mason CJ and McHugh J in Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; 177 CLR 292; 199 ALR 385 at CLR 297-298; ALR 386:…
R v Glennon
[1992] HCA 16

…ces will usually have to be extreme for such relief to be given; Jago v District Court of New South Wales 1989 168 CLR 23; The Queen v Glennon 1992 173 CLR 592; R v Tolmie supra. 13 Were the employment or accommodation records or the passenger manifests accessible, it is reasonable to conclude that they would…
Jago v District Court (NSW)
[1989] HCA 46

…xercise of discretion, the circumstances will usually have to be extreme for such relief to be given; Jago v District Court of New South Wales 1989 168 CLR 23; The Queen v Glennon 1992 173 CLR 592; R v Tolmie supra. 13 Were the employment or accommodation records or the passenger manifests accessible, it is r…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…nto account some material consideration and his exercise of discretion on the issue presented for his decision was untainted: House v The King 1936 55 CLR 499.”…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Rosamond [2021] NSWDC 677
Hearing dates:	25 October 2021; 27 October 2021
Date of orders:	29 October 2021
Decision date:	29 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Sutherland SC
Decision:	Application for temporary stay dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIME – fraud – application for temporary stay – voluminous expert report – funding for senior and junior counsel
Cases Cited:	Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; 177 CLR 292; 199 ALR 385 Hamilton v DPP [2012] NSWSC 1365 Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 87 ALR 577 Jago v the Queen (1989) 168 CLR 23 Kolalich v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 237 NAB v Human Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1404 National Australia Bank Ltd v Human Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1900 R v Edwards [2009] HCA 20 R v George Adler (Unreported, NSWCCA 11 June 1992) R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173 R v Seller and McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; (2015) 89 NSWLR 155 R v Stringer [2000] NSWCCA 293 R v Tolmie (Unreported, NSWCCA 7 December 1994) R v Warwick (No 64) [2019] NSWSC 163 R v Warwick (No 69) [2019] NSWSC 1059 Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374 Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378 Wong v R [2001] WASCA 32
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Helen Mary Rosamond (Applicant) Crown (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: A Hughes (Applicant) K Prince (Respondent) Solicitors: AA Criminal Law (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/00067521
Publication restriction:	Nil