R v Warwick (No.22) [2018] NSWSC 696

R v Warwick (No.22) [2018] NSWSC 696

The Court was not satisfied that deferring the Crown opening would materially reduce adverse publicity or that the timing of the opening would prejudice the fairness of the judge-alone trial. The balance previously struck between the accused's interests and the public interest remained appropriate, and the Crown opening would assist the Court and the accused by clarifying the Crown case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Pre Trial Notice of Motion by the Accused to Defer the Crown Opening Until After a Directed Acquittal or Permanent Stay Application
Outcome
Orders 1 and 3 of the Notice of Motion were dismissed; Order 2 was stood over to 10am on 15 May 2018.
Legal Topics
['crown Opening Address' 'permanent Stay' 'directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'adverse Publicity' 'judge Alone Trial' 'fair Trial' 'public Interest in Prompt Disposition of Criminal Proceedings']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['crown Opening Address' 'permanent Stay' 'directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'adverse Publicity' 'judge Alone Trial' 'fair Trial' 'public Interest in Prompt Disposition of Criminal Proceedings']

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 / Pre Trial Notice of Motion by the Accused to Defer the Crown Opening Until After a Directed Acquittal or Permanent Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown opening should be deferred until after the accused's Notice of Motion for a directed acquittal or permanent stay is heard." 'Whether adverse publicity from the Crown opening justified deferring the opening in circumstances where the trial was to be heard by judge alone.' 'Whether the accused and the Court would benefit from the Crown opening identifying the Crown case before further pre-trial issues were determined.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that deferring the Crown opening would materially reduce adverse publicity or that the timing of the opening would prejudice the fairness of the judge-alone trial. The balance previously struck between the accused's interests and the public interest remained appropriate, and the Crown opening would assist the Court and the accused by clarifying the Crown case.

Court Disposition

Orders 1 and 3 of the Notice of Motion were dismissed; Order 2 was stood over to 10am on 15 May 2018.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss Orders 1 and 3 of the Notice of Motion filed 15 May 2018.' 'Stand over Order 2 to 10am on 15 May 2018.']