R v Nour (No 3) [2017] NSWDC 392

R v Nour (No 3) [2017] NSWDC 392

The accused had a pending Legal Aid Review Committee appeal, the application was made in good faith and was neither frivolous nor vexatious nor made for the improper purpose of delay, and there were no special circumstances preventing an adjournment. Given the seriousness of the charges, the accused's mental health and education difficulties, and the risk of unfairness if he continued unrepresented, the adjournment required by s 57 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 was granted despite the Crown's concerns about delay and the complainant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Second Application for Adjournment / District Court Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Adjournment granted
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'unrepresented Accused' 'legal Aid Review Committee Appeal' 'fair Trial' 'prescribed Sexual Offence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'legal Aid'] ['adjournment' 'unrepresented Accused' 'legal Aid Review Committee Appeal' 'fair Trial' 'prescribed Sexual Offence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings; Second Application for Adjournment / District Court Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused had appealed to a Legal Aid Review Committee and the appeal had not been determined for the purposes of s 57 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979.' 'Whether the appeal was bona fide and not frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise intended to improperly delay the proceedings.' 'Whether special circumstances prevented the Court from adjourning the proceedings.' 'Whether proceeding with a serious criminal trial while the accused was unrepresented would risk unfairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused had a pending Legal Aid Review Committee appeal, the application was made in good faith and was neither frivolous nor vexatious nor made for the improper purpose of delay, and there were no special circumstances preventing an adjournment. Given the seriousness of the charges, the accused's mental health and education difficulties, and the risk of unfairness if he continued unrepresented, the adjournment required by s 57 of the Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 was granted despite the Crown's concerns about delay and the complainant.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted

Orders

  • ['Adjournment granted']