R v Sparos (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 323

R v Sparos (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 323

The motion to vacate the trial date and place the matter in the call-over was dismissed because the accused was not unrepresented through no fault of his own, was not shown to be indigent, and had chosen not to seek or maintain legal representation until he personally listened to all Witness E calls. Although the conditions of his incarceration caused some real difficulties and delays in accessing the calls, the Court was not satisfied that he needed to listen to all calls before the trial commenced or that the matter should be delayed until 2019. A six-week adjournment and relisting before Harrison J on 30 April 2018 was sufficient to permit the accused to listen to the calls and prepare...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder / Notice of Motion Seeking to Vacate the Trial Date of 19 March 2018 and Have the Matter Placed in the Call Over List to Obtain a New Date
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; trial relisted to commence on 30 April 2018.
Legal Topics
['application to Vacate Trial Date' 'fair Trial' 'unrepresented Accused' 'legal Representation' 'trial Preparation in Custody' 'disclosure of Gaol Telephone Calls']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['application to Vacate Trial Date' 'fair Trial' 'unrepresented Accused' 'legal Representation' 'trial Preparation in Custody' 'disclosure of Gaol Telephone Calls']

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 Proceeding for Murder / Notice of Motion Seeking to Vacate the Trial Date of 19 March 2018 and Have the Matter Placed in the Call Over List to Obtain a New Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial date of 19 March 2018 should be vacated and the matter placed in the call-over list for a new trial date.' 'Whether the accused should receive a stay or adjournment because he was unrepresented.' 'Whether the accused could receive a fair trial unless he personally listened to all of the Witness E calls before the trial commenced.' "Whether conditions of the accused's incarceration impeded his preparation for trial sufficiently to justify delaying the trial."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to vacate the trial date and place the matter in the call-over was dismissed because the accused was not unrepresented through no fault of his own, was not shown to be indigent, and had chosen not to seek or maintain legal representation until he personally listened to all Witness E calls. Although the conditions of his incarceration caused some real difficulties and delays in accessing the calls, the Court was not satisfied that he needed to listen to all calls before the trial commenced or that the matter should be delayed until 2019. A six-week adjournment and relisting before Harrison J on 30 April 2018 was sufficient to permit the accused to listen to the calls and prepare...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; trial relisted to commence on 30 April 2018.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion seeking to vacate the trial date of 19 March 2018 and have the matter placed in the call-over list to obtain a new date is dismissed.' 'The trial is to be re-listed to commence before Harrison J on 30 April 2018.']