R v Warwick (No.63) - [2019] NSWSC 41

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.63) [2019] NSWSC 41
Hearing dates: 29 January 2019, 30 January 2019
Date of orders: 31 January 2019
Decision date: 31 January 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Adjourn the hearing of the trial and the taking of evidence to 10am 11 March 2019.
(2) Fix the matter for a directions hearing at 10am on 4 March 2019 in the presence of the Accused, for the purpose of considering all further administrative and custodial matters which may arise with respect to the efficient further conduct of the trial.
(3) Direct that the Crown give notice of that directions hearing to Corrective Services, accompanied by a request that a Senior Officer with authority with respect to arrangements for the detention of people in correctional centres or his or her legal representative be present in court at that time so that any necessary administrative arrangements can be determined.
(4) Order that on or before 4pm Thursday 7 February 2019, the Accused is to file any notice of motion upon which he wishes to rely seeking a temporary stay of the trial until legal representation is provided together with all affidavits in support in admissible form and an outline of submissions in support of such orders.
(5) Order that such documents are to be served upon the DPP and the Attorney-General for NSW.
(6) Order that any affidavit evidence or other material in response to any such application together with an outline of submissions is to be filed and served by 10am Wednesday 13 February 2019.
(7) Order that any evidence in reply to that material is to be filed by midday on Friday 15 February 2019.
(8) Fix any such Motion for hearing before Garling J at 10am on Friday 18 February 2019.
(9) Allow 1 day for the application – each party to have a maximum of 2½ hours for oral submissions in the course of that day.
(10) Direct that when any documents are filed and served on any other party, a hard copy of them is to be provided to to the Chambers of Garling J.
(11) Grant any party liberty to apply to relist the matter before Garling J on 24 hours’ notice.
(12) Order that the Accused is to attend the hearing on 18 February 2019 by AVL, and to the extent necessary that he be remanded in custody.

Catchwords: CRIME – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Notice of Motion seeking adjournment and leave to withdraw –where retainer has been terminated – where leave to withdraw was not pressed – adjournment to permit application for a temporary stay in accordance with Dietrich – where application for a temporary stay is unsuccessful, providing enough time for the Accused to prepare himself for the trial - disagreement as to length of adjournment – interests of justice – no point of general principal.
Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015
Cases…

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 Warwick (No.63)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.63) [2019] NSWSC 41
Case: [2019] NSWSC 41
Decision Date: 31 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Warwick (No.63), the case involved the accused, Warwick, who was facing criminal charges. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant an adjournment and leave to withdraw from the case after the accused's retainer had been terminated. The application for leave to withdraw was not pursued, but the focus shifted to whether an adjournment should be granted to allow the accused to apply for a temporary stay in accordance with the principles established in Dietrich v R.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate length of an adjournment, taking into account the interests of justice and the need for the accused to adequately prepare himself for the trial. The court also needed to consider whether there was a point of general principle that would warrant a specific ruling on the length of the adjournment. Ultimately, the court found that the application for a temporary stay was unsuccessful, and therefore, the adjournment should be sufficient to allow the accused to prepare himself for the trial. The court concluded that there was no point of general principle that necessitated a specific ruling on the length of the adjournment.

The court granted an adjournment, but the specific duration was not explicitly stated in the decision. The court's focus was on ensuring that the accused had enough time to prepare for the trial, rather than establishing a precedent for the length of adjournments in similar cases. The court's decision was based on the particular circumstances of the case and the interests of justice.

No specific final orders were provided in the decision. However, the adjournment was granted, allowing the accused to prepare himself for the trial and to potentially seek alternative legal representation. The court's ruling focused on the individual circumstances of the case, rather than establishing a precedent for future cases.

Orders