R v Dasilva [2015] NSWSC 1909

R v Dasilva [2015] NSWSC 1909

Even assuming the Accused's former solicitor waived committal without consent, no useful remedy of remittal was warranted because committal proceedings were not a condition precedent to trial on indictment, an indictment had been filed, the Accused had been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, trial dates had been fixed, no abuse of process was asserted, and no realistic basis was shown for witnesses to be called or for discharge at committal. The change of venue application also failed because the Accused did not establish that a fair or unprejudiced trial could not be had in Newcastle, given appropriate jury selection measures and the principle that juries act on the evidence and the trial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on a Charge of Murder / Pretrial Notice of Motion Seeking Remittal to the Local Court for a Committal Hearing and Change of Venue From Newcastle to Sydney
Outcome
The Accused's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2015 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'committal Proceedings' 'waiver of Committal Hearing' 'bill of Indictment' 'change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'pretrial Publicity' 'jury Selection']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'committal Proceedings' 'waiver of Committal Hearing' 'bill of Indictment' 'change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'pretrial Publicity' 'jury Selection']

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 on a Charge of Murder / Pretrial Notice of Motion Seeking Remittal to the Local Court for a Committal Hearing and Change of Venue From Newcastle to Sydney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial date should be vacated and the proceedings remitted to the Local Court for a committal hearing because the Accused's former solicitor allegedly waived committal without the Accused's consent." "Whether the venue of the Accused's trial should be changed from the Supreme Court at Newcastle to the Supreme Court sitting in Sydney because of alleged adverse media publicity in the Central Coast and Newcastle areas."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the Accused's former solicitor waived committal without consent, no useful remedy of remittal was warranted because committal proceedings were not a condition precedent to trial on indictment, an indictment had been filed, the Accused had been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, trial dates had been fixed, no abuse of process was asserted, and no realistic basis was shown for witnesses to be called or for discharge at committal. The change of venue application also failed because the Accused did not establish that a fair or unprejudiced trial could not be had in Newcastle, given appropriate jury selection measures and the principle that juries act on the evidence and the trial...

Court Disposition

The Accused's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2015 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Accused's Notice of Motion filed 8 December 2015 is dismissed."]