Woods v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Fantakis v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2)

The case before the Court involved two applicants, Woods and Fantakis, who sought a stay of committal proceedings in the Local Court. The applicants were facing criminal charges and had initiated a judicial review application in the Supreme Court, challenging the lawfulness of the proceedings against them. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) opposed the applications. The primary issue for the Court was whether the applicants were entitled to a stay of the committal proceedings pending the outcome of their judicial review applications in the Supreme Court.

The Court considered the nature of the relief sought by the applicants and the principles governing the stay of criminal proceedings. It was noted that the applicants were essentially seeking to challenge the validity of the charges against them before a determination had been made by the Local Court. The Court recognised that the stay of criminal proceedings was an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The Court also considered the public interest in the expeditious resolution of criminal matters and the potential impact on the administration of justice if the proceedings were stayed.

Ultimately, the Court determined that the applicants were not entitled to a stay of the committal proceedings. It was found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the matters raised in their judicial review applications were of such a nature that the proceedings should be stayed. The Court emphasised that the applicants' challenge to the validity of the charges was a matter that could be addressed at the trial stage, rather than prior to the committal proceedings. The applications for a stay were accordingly dismissed.

The Court ordered that the applicants' applications for a stay of committal proceedings be dismissed, and that the committal proceedings in the Local Court were to proceed as scheduled. The Court also noted that the applicants remained free to raise any issues concerning the validity of the charges against them during the course of the trial.