R v Wiggins (No 4) - [2022] NSWSC 27

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Wiggins (No 4)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2022] NSWSC 27
Hearing Date(s):	17 January 2022
Date of Orders:	24 January 2022
Decision Date:	24 January 2022
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	N Adams J
Decision:	(1) The trial date of 31 January 2022 is vacated. (2) The matter is listed before R A Hulme J on 11 February 2022 for allocation of a further trial date. (3) The accused’s bail conditions to revert to those prior to the variation I made on 13 December 2021.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — application to vacate trial due to COVID-19 – where accused on bail – where substantial delay already incurred – where trial would run significantly over predicted time – whether in interests of justice to vacate trial date – application granted
Cases Cited:	Wiggins v R [2020] NSWCCA 256
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Matthew Paul Wiggins (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: P Barrett with S Sloane (Crown) D Dalton SC (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) Khan Law & Associates
File Number(s):	2013/13092

Judgment

On 15 January 2013, Matthew Paul Wiggins was charged with the murder of Darko Janceski (“the deceased”) and the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on the deceased’s father, Slobodan Janceski. The offences were committed on 14 April 2012. The issue at trial will be whether it was Mr Wiggins or some other person who committed those offences.
Since his arrest, this matter has had an unfortunate procedural history. The matter was not listed for trial until 6 March 2017, over four years after he was charged. That trial proceeded before Davies J and a jury. After 15 days of evidence the trial was aborted and the jury discharged. A second jury trial was listed to commence on 3 October 2017 before Latham J. That trial was adjourned to 31 October 2017. When it eventually proceeded, the second trial resulted in a hung jury on 11 December 2017. On 9 April 2018, a third trial was listed. It proceeded before Latham J and a jury of twelve. Mr Wiggins was found guilty on 16 May 2018 and on 24 July 2018 was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
The accused appealed against that conviction and his matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 6 April 2020. On 7 October 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial: Wiggins v R [2020] NSWCCA 256. Given the delay in the matter, the accused was granted bail on strict conditions on 17 December 2020.
The accused’s trial was listed to commence for a fourth time before me on 21 June 2021. Although several pre-trial issues were able to be resolved, the trial date had to be vacated due to the suspension of jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The accused’s trial was listed to commence for the fifth time before me during the court vacation on 17 January 2022. On…

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 Wiggins (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Wiggins (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 27
Case: [2022] NSWSC 27
Decision Date: 24 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wiggins has been charged with multiple serious criminal offences, including murder. The case was set to be heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, but Wiggins applied to vacate the trial date due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court was required to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by vacating the trial date, given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court included the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the administration of justice, the impact of a significant delay on Wiggins' right to a fair trial, and the court's discretion to vacate a trial date in exceptional circumstances. The court also had to consider the public interest in the expeditious resolution of criminal cases, particularly those involving serious offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the COVID-19 pandemic had created exceptional circumstances that warranted the exercise of its discretion to vacate the trial date. The court noted that Wiggins had already been on bail for a substantial period of time and that the trial was likely to run significantly over the predicted time due to the pandemic. The court held that it was in the interests of justice to vacate the trial date and reschedule the trial for a later time, when it was safer to proceed with the trial. The court also noted that the public interest in the expeditious resolution of criminal cases was not as pressing as the need to ensure that the trial was conducted in a safe and fair manner. The application to vacate the trial date was therefore granted. The court ordered that the trial be rescheduled for a later date, to be determined by the parties and the court.

Orders