R v Sparos (No 4) - [2018] NSWSC 323

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 323
Hearing dates: 27 February 2018, 1 March 2018, 6 March 2018, 8 March 2018, 13 March 2018 and 15 March 2018
Date of orders: 15 March 2018
Decision date: 15 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The notice of motion seeking to vacate the trial date of 19 March 2018 and have the matter placed in the call-over list to obtain a new date is dismissed.
(2) The trial is to be re-listed to commence before Harrison J on 30 April 2018.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – application to vacate trial date
Cases Cited: Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57
R v Sparos (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1410
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Luke Sparos (Accused)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Korn, until 6 March 2018 (Accused)
Self-represented, from 6 March 2018 (Accused)
Mr C Patrick SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers, until 6 March 2018 (Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/196615

Judgment

Background

Luke Sparos is due to stand trial on 19 March 2018 for the murder of Gemahl Maika.
On 27 February 2017, a notice of motion was filed in court seeking that the hearing date of 19 March 2018 be vacated. The accused was legally represented at the hearing of the motion by Mr John Korn of counsel who was instructed by Mr Kiki Kyriacou, solicitor.
The accused is presently detained at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (“MRRC”) at Silverwater for the purposes of his court appearances. He is otherwise housed at the High-Risk Management Correctional Centre (“HRMCC”) at Goulburn. He is considered to be an “Extreme High Security inmate". The circumstances of his incarceration play a large role in his claim that he is unable to properly prepare for his upcoming trial.
This is the third time that the accused’s matter has been listed for trial. The accused’s first trial commenced on 11 April 2016, along with other co-accused, before Adams J. The jury retired on 21 July 2016 but was unable to agree on a verdict in relation to the accused and was discharged in relation to him on 5 August 2016. The second trial was listed shortly thereafter to commence on 3 October 2017. The lengthy adjournment was granted to suit the convenience of defence counsel. I have set out the reasons why that second trial was unable to commence in my decision of 20 October 2017: R v Sparos (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1410. The procedural history of the matter up until that date is set out therein. At that time, I ordered that the trial be temporarily stayed until the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (“DPP”) paid to the accused the costs thrown away due to the vacation of that trial date. The procedural history of the matter from that date to the present is…

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 (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Sparos (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 323
Case: [2018] NSWSC 323
Decision Date: 15 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Sparos (No 4) was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Sparos, sought to vacate a trial date set in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involved allegations of serious criminal offences, including murder, and Sparos had previously attempted to have the trial date vacated on several occasions. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had exercised discretion in accordance with statutory provisions and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted vacating the trial date.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the setting and vacating of trial dates. It was necessary to determine whether the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and whether any procedural flaws had occurred. The court held that the trial judge had indeed exercised the discretion correctly, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The decision to set the trial date was found to be procedurally sound, and there were no grounds for vacating it. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and ensuring that all relevant factors are considered in such decisions.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in the argument that the trial date should be vacated. It underscored the principle that trial dates should not be lightly disturbed and that significant reasons must exist to warrant such action. The decision reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory guidelines in criminal proceedings.

Orders