R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 43) [2016] NSWSC 410

R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 43) [2016] NSWSC 410

Some adjournment was justified because there was now a firm proposal for Mr Wendler to appear for McNamara and it was preferable that McNamara be represented. However, the longer adjournment sought was not justified because the jury had already been absent for one week, there had been unsatisfactory delay in securing representation, the Crown case was nearly closed, any remaining cross-examination would be limited, the issues appeared relatively narrow, and counsel had already conferred with McNamara and commenced reading the transcript. A three-day adjournment was sufficient.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application for Adjournment During Trial After Accused Mc Namara Obtained New Counsel
Outcome
Adjournment granted in part.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'legal Representation' 'jury Trial' 'conduct of Trial']
['criminal Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'legal Representation' 'jury Trial' 'conduct of Trial']

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 Trial / Application for Adjournment During Trial After Accused Mc Namara Obtained New Counsel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial should be adjourned to allow newly retained counsel for McNamara to read the material and obtain instructions.' 'If an adjournment should be granted, how long the adjournment should be in light of the interests of McNamara, the Crown, Rogerson and the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Some adjournment was justified because there was now a firm proposal for Mr Wendler to appear for McNamara and it was preferable that McNamara be represented. However, the longer adjournment sought was not justified because the jury had already been absent for one week, there had been unsatisfactory delay in securing representation, the Crown case was nearly closed, any remaining cross-examination would be limited, the issues appeared relatively narrow, and counsel had already conferred with McNamara and commenced reading the transcript. A three-day adjournment was sufficient.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted in part.

Orders

  • ['The trial was adjourned to 10am on Thursday 14 April 2016.' 'The matter was listed before the judge at 10am on Wednesday 13 April 2016 to hear the remaining legal arguments.' 'The judge requested and recommended that McNamara remain at court on 11 April 2016 for as long as possible so that Mr Wendler and Mr Abbas...