CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against order for stay of first two counts in an indictment - whether order for stay should have been made at the request of the Crown - effect thereof
APPEAL - Crown appeal against order for stay of first two counts in an indictment - whether order made by consent
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether order for stay of first two counts in an indictment is a final or interlocutory order - whether leave to appeal necessary
Crimes Act 1900, s.30 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, ss. 24(1A), 30A
R v McGraw (1991) 66 CC (3rd) 517 Doney v The Queen(1990) 171 CLR 207 Rogers v Curnow (1976) 22 SASR 204 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1)(1981) 147 CLR 246 Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1984) 54 ALR 676 Miki Shoko Co Ltd v Merv Brown Pty Ltd (1988) ATPR 40-858 Vink v Shering Pty Ltd (No 1)(1991) ATPR 41-064 The Queen v Davies (unreported, Wilcox, Burchett and Hill JJ, 23 June 1995) Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd(1980) 147 CLR 35 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23 Barton v The Queen(1980) 147 CLR 75 Walton v Gardiner(1993) 177 CLR 378 Ridgeway v R (1995) 129 ALR 41 R v Smith & Ors (1994) 73 A Crim R 384 McPherson v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184 Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439 R v Tait and Bartley(1979) 24 ALR 473 Everett v The Queen(1994) 181 CLR 295 Wade v Hunter (1949) 336 US 684 United States v Jorn (1971) 400 US 470 Illinois v Somerville (1973) 410 US 458 Regina v McAnish and Cook (1973) 15 CCC (2d) 494 Regina v Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Chairman); ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions [1952) 2 QB 758 In re Harrington [1984] AC 743 Benson v Northern Ireland Road Transport Case [1942] AC 520 King v Wilkes(1948) 77 CLR 511 Duchess of Kingston's Case (1774\6) 20 Howell St Tr 355 Davern v Messel(1984) 155 CLR 21 Haynes v Davis [1915] 1 KB 332 Regina v Lawson and Slavnik (1975) Crim LQ 287 Re Bond (1936) 66 CCC 271 Regina v Riddle (1979) 100 DLR (3d) 577 Flatman v Light [1946] KB 414 United States v Di Francesco (1980) 449 US 117
Green v United States (1957) 335 US 184 Carsey v United States (1967) 392 F 2d 810 Rogers v The Queen(1994) 181 CLR 251 Gilchrist v Gardiner (1891) 12 NSWLR (L) 184 Mann v Jacombe (1960) 78 WN (NSW) 635 Poole v The Queen [1961] AC 223 R v Saunders [1983] 2 Qd R 270 R v Jell; ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 48 Castanho v Brown and Root (U.K.) Ltd [1981] AC 557 R v Ferguson; ex parte…
Details
AGLC
The Queen v Leece, John David [1996] FCA 268
Case
[1996] FCA 268
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Crown appeals against an order made by a judge in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory staying the prosecution on the first two counts of an indictment. The appeal raises questions of the right of the Crown to appeal, the circumstances in which a court may stay proceedings and the fairness to an accused of the Crown's conduct in relation to the prosecution. The first two counts charged the accused with threatening to kill a woman and with assaulting her. The remaining counts related to damage allegedly caused by the accused after he had threatened the woman and she had fled. The accused's counsel objected to the joinder of the remaining counts with the first two on the basis that evidence of the remaining counts might be unfairly prejudicial to the accused in relation to the first two counts. The Crown's counsel outlined the evidence it proposed to lead in relation to the first two counts. The judge formed the view that the evidence would not sustain a conviction on the first two counts and, at the Crown's request, made an order staying the prosecution on those counts. The Crown appeals against the order on the basis that it was wrong in law and ought not to have been made. The appeal raises issues of the Crown's right to appeal, the nature of the order and the circumstances in which the court may properly stay proceedings. The appeal ought not to be allowed and the orders appealed against ought to be upheld. The judge was entitled to make the order he did and the Crown has no right to appeal. The orders are interlocutory and, if leave is required, it should not be granted. The Crown's conduct in relation to the prosecution was fair.