R v IL (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1733

R v IL (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1733

The adjournment and associated discharge of the jury were refused because the Crown had no interlocutory appeal route for the ruling, its appeal rights arose only after acquittal, and adjourning to allow an appeal would effectively convert the statutory appeal against acquittal into an interlocutory appeal. The Crown had long been on notice of the directed verdict issue, identified no prejudice in the remaining charges going to verdict, and all available evidence on those charges had been adduced. Against that were the public expense and inconvenience of aborting a two-week jury trial, the jury's inconvenience, the accused's onerous bail and entitlement to finality, and the lack of detail...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Crown Application for Adjournment and Discharge of Jury After the Close of the Prosecution Case and After a Ruling Indicating Directed Acquittals on Two Counts
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused; associated applications to discharge the jury refused; trial continued.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'discharge of Jury' 'directed Acquittal' 'prosecution Appeal Rights' 'interlocutory Appeals' 'jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['adjournment' 'discharge of Jury' 'directed Acquittal' 'prosecution Appeal Rights' 'interlocutory Appeals' 'jury 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 / Crown Application for Adjournment and Discharge of Jury After the Close of the Prosecution Case and After a Ruling Indicating Directed Acquittals on Two Counts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial should be adjourned, with the jury discharged, to allow the Crown to appeal directed verdicts of acquittal on the homicide counts.' 'Whether fairness to the accused, alleged absence of prejudice, public interest, or possible effect on other cases justified aborting the trial.' 'Whether the Crown had any prejudice if the remaining charges proceeded to verdict.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment and associated discharge of the jury were refused because the Crown had no interlocutory appeal route for the ruling, its appeal rights arose only after acquittal, and adjourning to allow an appeal would effectively convert the statutory appeal against acquittal into an interlocutory appeal. The Crown had long been on notice of the directed verdict issue, identified no prejudice in the remaining charges going to verdict, and all available evidence on those charges had been adduced. Against that were the public expense and inconvenience of aborting a two-week jury trial, the jury's inconvenience, the accused's onerous bail and entitlement to finality, and the lack of detail...

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused; associated applications to discharge the jury refused; trial continued.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application for an adjournment was refused." 'The associated applications to discharge the jury were refused.' 'The trial continues.']