R v Tasich (No 2)

The respondents, Tasich and others, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a stay of proceedings in relation to charges of knowingly giving false evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The respondents had previously been acquitted of charges of bribery. The application for a stay was rejected by the trial judge, and the Crown rejected an application for entry of nolle prosequi. The matter was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had to determine several legal issues, including the requirement for the trial judge to give reasons for accepting or rejecting a request for nolle prosequi, the applicability of issue estoppel in criminal proceedings, and whether the use of the Court's procedures was unjustifiably oppressive. The Court also had to consider the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution Guidelines.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial judge was not required to give reasons for rejecting the application for a nolle prosequi. The Court found that the issue of whether the trial judge should have given reasons was not a matter of general public importance, and therefore, did not warrant an appeal. The Court also held that issue estoppel was not applicable in criminal proceedings, and that the use of the Court's procedures was not unjustifiably oppressive. The Court found that the respondents' application for a stay of proceedings was an abuse of process, and that the Crown's rejection of the application for entry of nolle prosequi was not an abuse of process. The Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution Guidelines did not apply to the circumstances of this case.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the notice of motion and held that the application for a stay of proceedings was an abuse of process. The Court found that the respondents had not established any grounds for the stay of proceedings, and that the trial judge's decision to reject the application for a nolle prosequi was not an abuse of process. The Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution Guidelines did not apply to the circumstances of this case. The Court found that the use of the Court's procedures was not unjustifiably oppressive, and that the respondents' application for a stay of proceedings was an abuse of process. The Court held that the respondents were not entitled to a stay of proceedings, and that the notice of motion was dismissed.