R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 878

R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 878

The application for an adjournment was refused because Mr Sparos' predicament was self-inflicted by his unreasonable discharge of counsel, and the prejudice claimed regarding loss of preferred counsel did not amount to unfair prejudice justifying exclusion of evidence or adjournment under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The evidence proposed to be led by the Crown had probative value, and its prejudicial effect did not outweigh this. The unrepresented status of the accused was properly addressed by judicial instructions to the jury.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Luke John Sparos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Unrepresented Accused, Exclusion of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Representation, Probative Value
Criminal Law Evidence Adjournment Unrepresented Accused Exclusion of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Representation Probative Value

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Luke John Sparos

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the trial be adjourned for two weeks to allow Mr Sparos, now unrepresented, to prepare or to retain new counsel?
  2. 2 Should the Crown be permitted to call Mr Djemal, a former barrister for Mr Sparos, as a witness for the prosecution in light of alleged unfair prejudice?

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an adjournment was refused because Mr Sparos' predicament was self-inflicted by his unreasonable discharge of counsel, and the prejudice claimed regarding loss of preferred counsel did not amount to unfair prejudice justifying exclusion of evidence or adjournment under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The evidence proposed to be led by the Crown had probative value, and its prejudicial effect did not outweigh this. The unrepresented status of the accused was properly addressed by judicial instructions to the jury.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused