SC v The Queen
Case
•
[2020] NSWCCA 314
•02 December 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
SC v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 314
[2020] NSWCCA 314
02 December 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved an appeal by the Crown against the decision of a trial judge to refuse a request to revoke the appointment of a "children's champion" or witness intermediary. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the refusal of the trial judge to revoke the appointment of the witness intermediary constituted an interlocutory judgment or order, which would permit an application for leave to appeal under section 5F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act. The court was also required to interpret certain provisions of Part 29 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, particularly clause 89(5), to determine whether it imposed a continuing condition on the appointment of a witness intermediary, and whether such an intermediary could also act as a witness in the proceedings.
The High Court held that the refusal to revoke the appointment of the witness intermediary was indeed an interlocutory judgment or order. The court interpreted clause 89(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act as not operating as a continuing condition of the appointment of a witness intermediary, but rather as a requirement that must be met at the time of the appointment. Furthermore, the court clarified that a witness intermediary could be a witness in the proceedings, provided their impartiality had not been compromised. The court also held that the assistance provided by a witness intermediary was not restricted to therapeutic assistance but could include any form of assistance given in a professional capacity. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the appointment of the witness intermediary.
The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the appointment of the witness intermediary. The court's decision provided important clarification on the role and scope of a witness intermediary in criminal proceedings and the legal framework governing their appointment and revocation.
The High Court held that the refusal to revoke the appointment of the witness intermediary was indeed an interlocutory judgment or order. The court interpreted clause 89(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act as not operating as a continuing condition of the appointment of a witness intermediary, but rather as a requirement that must be met at the time of the appointment. Furthermore, the court clarified that a witness intermediary could be a witness in the proceedings, provided their impartiality had not been compromised. The court also held that the assistance provided by a witness intermediary was not restricted to therapeutic assistance but could include any form of assistance given in a professional capacity. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the appointment of the witness intermediary.
The final orders of the court included granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the appointment of the witness intermediary. The court's decision provided important clarification on the role and scope of a witness intermediary in criminal proceedings and the legal framework governing their appointment and revocation.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Judicial Review
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
SC v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 314
Most Recent Citation
PJ v R [2023] NSWCCA 105
Cases Citing This Decision
12
R v Marshall
[2023] SASCA 105
PJ v R
[2023] NSWCCA 105
PJ v R
[2023] NSWCCA 105