Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 5] [2008] NSWSC 728

Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 5] [2008] NSWSC 728

The Director's consent was given before the indictment was presented and the accused were arraigned in the Supreme Court. Because proceedings on indictment in the Supreme Court commenced only upon presentation of the indictment and arraignment, the present proceedings were validly instituted and were not a nullity. Any alleged irregularity or invalidity in the committal proceedings did not require the indictment to be quashed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Application to Quash Indictment as a Nullity / Pre Trial Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Application to quash indictment dismissed.
Legal Topics
['indictments' 'consent to Commence Proceedings for Conspiracy' 'commencement of Proceedings' 'criminal Code Act 1995 (cth), S 11.5(8)']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['indictments' 'consent to Commence Proceedings for Conspiracy' 'commencement of Proceedings' 'criminal Code Act 1995 (cth), S 11.5(8)']

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 Proceedings; Application to Quash Indictment as a Nullity / Pre Trial Application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the indictment should be quashed on the ground that the Crown failed to obtain the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' consent before proceedings for conspiracy were commenced as required by s 11.5(8) of the Criminal Code." "Whether criminal proceedings on indictment in the Supreme Court commenced before or after the Director's consent was given." 'Whether any alleged irregularity or invalidity in the committal proceedings made the proceedings on indictment a nullity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's consent was given before the indictment was presented and the accused were arraigned in the Supreme Court. Because proceedings on indictment in the Supreme Court commenced only upon presentation of the indictment and arraignment, the present proceedings were validly instituted and were not a nullity. Any alleged irregularity or invalidity in the committal proceedings did not require the indictment to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application to quash indictment dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application seeking to quash the indictment is dismissed.']