R v Warwick (No.67) - [2019] NSWSC 536

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.67) [2019] NSWSC 536
Hearing dates: 10 May 2019
Date of orders: 10 May 2019
Decision date: 10 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [16]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – case management – listing for resumption of trial – change of solicitors and counsel – consideration of the accused’s right not to be tried unfairly l and the proper administration of justice
Legislation Cited: Not Applicable
Cases Cited: R v Warwick (No.64) [2019] NSWSC 163
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
E Ozen SC / S Climo (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment (T.6117)

The Court has engaged today in the determination of the appropriate dates for the resumption and further conduct of this part-heard trial.

Background

On 15 May 2018, the trial of the charges against the Accused commenced. Evidence was first taken on 16 July 2018. The Accused was first arraigned before me on 3 March 2017, and with the consent of his then counsel, a trial date was fixed for 16 February 2018. That fixture was on the basis that a period of 11 months would be a more than adequate time for the resolution of all outstanding pre-trial issues and the proper preparation of the proceedings.
I have recounted the chequered path of this trial in previous judgments of this Court which it is unnecessary to repeat. As the recent decision R v Warwick (No.64) [2019] NSWSC 163 demonstrates, the lawyers who acted for the Accused throughout 2018 determined that they would cease to act for him at the commencement of the law term in 2019. Consequently, a grant of legal aid was sought. The grant was made to the Accused in early March 2019.

New Lawyers

Senior counsel and junior counsel were retained around 15 March 2019. For reasons which are unclear and perhaps do not need to be explored, senior counsel accepted the brief in circumstances where he had an existing six‑week professional commitment commencing in June, which he felt unable to cede to another counsel. Those six weeks comprise a trial anticipated to take four weeks from 17 June 2019 and a period of two weeks leading up to that time for preparation.
However, there cannot be any doubt that the solicitor employed by Legal Aid NSW who was instructed to act for the Accused, and junior counsel, are competent and experienced lawyers in the criminal law field, who are well capable of appearing for and assisting the Accused.

Submissions of the Accused

Submission has been made on behalf of the Accused that the trial in this matter ought not resume before October 2019. Senior counsel submitted that this lengthy further period would be necessary having regard to: the amount…

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.67)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.67) [2019] NSWSC 536
Case: [2019] NSWSC 536
Decision Date: 10 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Warwick, who was facing criminal charges. The dispute centred around the trial process, specifically the management of the case and the resumption of the trial after a change in legal representation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the fairness of the trial proceedings and the administration of justice. The court had to consider the accused's right to a fair trial and whether the change of solicitors and counsel would impact this right.

The court's reasoning focused on the balance between the accused's right to a fair trial and the efficient administration of justice. It was established that the accused had the right to be tried fairly, which includes the right to legal representation of their choice. However, this right must be balanced against the need to maintain the efficiency of the court system. The court considered whether the change in legal representation would cause significant delays or disruptions to the trial, and if so, whether these could be justified in the interest of fairness and justice. Ultimately, the court had to determine whether the accused's right to a fair trial was being upheld despite the changes in legal representation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the accused's right to a fair trial was not compromised by the change in legal representation. The court held that the accused's right to choose their legal representation was not absolute and must be balanced against the need for the trial to proceed efficiently. The court accepted that some delay would result from the change in representation, but found that this was justified in the circumstances. The court ordered that the trial would resume as scheduled, with the new solicitors and counsel representing the accused. This decision ensured that the trial proceeded in a fair and efficient manner, respecting both the accused's rights and the need for the proper administration of justice.

Orders