R v Stenner-Wall [2024] NSWDC 250

R v Stenner-Wall [2024] NSWDC 250

Because the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), representing a party to the litigation, sent correspondence to the Chief Judge during ongoing proceedings, days before judgments in two matters, expressing opinions about the judge's interlocutory decisions and warning of possible judicial review of future similar directions, the correspondence was an ex parte communication that had to be disclosed to the parties. The judge stated it had no effect on consideration of the relevant issues except to cause delay while disclosure was made and parties were given an opportunity to consider their positions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Ex parte correspondence disclosed to the parties; parties given an opportunity to consider their positions.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Communication' 'judge Alone Trial' 'interlocutory Decisions' 'judicial Review' 'disclosure to Parties' 'publication Restriction']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['ex Parte Communication' 'judge Alone Trial' 'interlocutory Decisions' 'judicial Review' 'disclosure to Parties' 'publication Restriction']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether correspondence from the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) to the Chief Judge concerning interlocutory decisions in ongoing proceedings was an ex parte communication requiring disclosure to the parties.' "Whether the content and timing of the correspondence, including a warning about possible judicial review of future directions, affected the judge's consideration of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), representing a party to the litigation, sent correspondence to the Chief Judge during ongoing proceedings, days before judgments in two matters, expressing opinions about the judge's interlocutory decisions and warning of possible judicial review of future similar directions, the correspondence was an ex parte communication that had to be disclosed to the parties. The judge stated it had no effect on consideration of the relevant issues except to cause delay while disclosure was made and parties were given an opportunity to consider their positions.

Court Disposition

Ex parte correspondence disclosed to the parties; parties given an opportunity to consider their positions.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 578A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), there is to be no publication of any matter which identifies the complainant or may lead to the identification of the complainant.']