R v Sparos - [2018] NSWSC 878

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 878
Hearing dates: 12 June 2018
Date of orders: 12 June 2018
Decision date: 13 June 2018
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Application refused

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application for adjournment – where unrepresented accused – where accused is the author of his own predicament – application refused
EVIDENCE – exclusion of evidence – whether probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – where Crown intends to call accused’s former barrister – where accused unable to retain preferred barrister – no unfair prejudice – application refused
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137
Cases Cited: Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) (2006) 205 FLR 217; [2006] NSWCCA 373
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke John Sparos (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Patrick SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/196615
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Sparos seeks an adjournment of a further two weeks following my judgment delivered on 7 June 2018: see R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 854. The effect of that decision is that Mr Sparos, having withdrawn instructions from Mr Smith SC, and having regard both to the fact that Mr Carroll is not prepared to appear without a leader unless he has four weeks to prepare and Mr Kyriacou has withdrawn, will now have to represent himself.
Mr Sparos made a series of submissions in support of his application. Many of those submissions amounted to criticisms of my previous decision and were an invitation to revisit what I had done. Mr Sparos has not, as far as I am aware, sought to challenge my decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal, despite my very clear indication to him that he had a right to do so. It appears from Mr Sparos’ comments in response to me when I indicated to him that he had such a right that he was already aware of it.
The starting point must be that Mr Sparos is not legally trained and can anticipate some not inconsiderable difficulties representing himself in what is undoubtedly both a serious and difficult criminal trial. Mr Sparos has indicated that, by reason of the complaints that he has concerning Mr Smith’s conduct of his defence so far, he will require several witnesses to be recalled for further cross-examination and that in the case of some witnesses whose statements were read by the Crown without objection, they will be required for cross-examination on their previously admitted statements. Mr Sparos also indicated that he will wish further to cross-examine Detective Klotz, Mr Cahill and Witness A, and that he will complete the interrupted cross-examination of Witness B.
Mr Sparos has submitted that all of this will require him to spend at least a further two weeks preparing and that he is not in a position to continue the trial before then. As a variation 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.

Continue reading R v Sparos

Details

AGLC: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 878
Case: [2018] NSWSC 878
Decision Date: 13 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sparos, the accused, unrepresented, applied for an adjournment on the basis that his former barrister was to be called as a witness for the Crown. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary issue before the court was whether the unrepresented accused, who had chosen not to retain his former barrister, could be granted an adjournment to allow him to retain the services of the former barrister, or whether the application should be dismissed.

The court considered the principle that an accused is generally the author of their own predicament and that they cannot be allowed to frustrate the administration of justice by unreasonable delay. The court also examined the evidence presented by the Crown, which included the intention to call the accused's former barrister as a witness. The accused argued that this would result in unfair prejudice, as he would be unable to cross-examine his former representative. However, the court determined that there was no significant risk of unfair prejudice, as the former barrister's testimony was not central to the Crown's case and the accused would still have the opportunity to challenge the evidence provided.

The court ultimately ruled that the application for adjournment was an attempt to frustrate the proceedings and was therefore refused. The court found that the probative value of the evidence to be presented by the former barrister did not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Consequently, the evidence would not be excluded, and the trial would proceed as scheduled.

The court ordered that the trial would proceed without further adjournment. The accused was reminded that he was entitled to put forward his defence and to challenge the evidence presented by the Crown, even without the assistance of his former barrister. The court emphasised the importance of the timely administration of justice and the principle that an accused cannot be allowed to manipulate the legal process for their own benefit.

Orders