The Queen v Rolfe (No 6) - [2021] NTSC 65

CITATION:The Queen v Rolfe (No 6) [2021] NTSC 65
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

ROLFE, Zachary

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21942050
DELIVERED:  19 August 2021
HEARING DATE:  19 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Mildren AJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for stay of proceedings – Interlocutory rulings in criminal matters – Crown application for stay pending determination of application for special leave to appeal to the High Court – Factors to be considered in whether or not a stay should be granted – Exceptional circumstances must be shown – Where lies the balance of convenience – Held: Application for stay refused
Criminal Code Act 1983 s 336(2)
Jennings Construction Ltd v Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 681; Mellifont v The Attorney-General (Qld) (1991) 173 CLR 289; R v Elliott (1996) 185 CLR 250; Sewell v The Queen [2001] HCA 529, considered
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:P. Strickland SC and J. Poole
Accused:D. Edwardson QC and A. Allen QC
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Tindall Gask Bentley
Judgment category classification:    A
Judgment ID Number:  Mil20569
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Rolfe (No 6) [2021] NTSC 65

No. 21942050
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

ZACHARY ROLFE

CORAM: MILDREN AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore 19 August 2021)
Introduction

This is an application for a stay pending an application for special leave to the High Court from the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in The Queen v Rolfe (No. 5) [2021] NTSCFC 6. In this case, Zachary Rolfe (‘the Accused’) has been arraigned and the trial has already commenced; see s 336(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (‘the Code’).
Procedural history
On 13 November 2019, the Accused was arrested by police for the alleged murder of Charles Arnold (“Kumanjayi”) Walker (‘the Deceased’). The Accused was granted bail on the same day by Local Court Judge Birch and has remained on bail ever since.
On 19 November 2019, an Information was laid charging the Accused with the murder of the Deceased on 9 November 2019 at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory, contrary to s 156 of the Code. A committal hearing was conducted from 1 September to 3 September 2020 in the Alice Springs Local Court before Judge Birch. On 26 October 2020, Judge Birch found that there was a case to answer and committed the Accused to stand trial in the Supreme Court in Alice Springs.
An Indictment was laid charging the Accused with murder on 26 October 2020. On 25 November 2020, the trial was set for 5 weeks to commence on 19 July 2021 before me. The first week of the trial was set aside for a voir dire hearing.
In December 2020, the Accused filed an application for the proceedings to be transferred from the Supreme Court in…

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 The Queen v Rolfe (No 6)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Rolfe (No 6) [2021] NTSC 65
Case: [2021] NTSC 65
Decision Date: 19 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against Rolfe in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant was charged with various criminal offences, including perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice. The Crown sought to stay the proceedings pending the determination of an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for a stay should be granted, considering the factors relevant to the decision-making process, such as the exceptional circumstances required, and the balance of convenience. The court examined the principles established in previous cases and the unique circumstances of this case.

The court held that a stay of proceedings could only be granted if exceptional circumstances were shown, and the balance of convenience favoured such a stay. In assessing these factors, the court took into account the seriousness of the charges, the potential impact on the administration of justice, and the interests of the parties involved. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, as the application for special leave to appeal did not involve novel or complex issues. Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not favour a stay of the proceedings, as the defendant's right to a fair and timely trial was of paramount importance. Consequently, the court refused the Crown's application for a stay of proceedings.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the Crown's application for a stay of proceedings pending the determination of the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The case proceeded to trial, and the defendant was ultimately convicted on several charges. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating exceptional circumstances and weighing the balance of convenience when seeking a stay of criminal proceedings. It also highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that the administration of justice is not unduly delayed, and that defendants' rights to a fair and timely trial are protected.

Orders