R v Xrizantemo [2024] NSWDC 185

R v Xrizantemo [2024] NSWDC 185

The power in s 9(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) is equivalent to the power to enter a nolle prosequi. Once the Crown Prosecutor informed the Court that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had declined to proceed further, the proceedings on the indictment came to an end. The Court therefore had no power to require the Crown to close its case in the presence of the jury or to direct the jury to return not guilty verdicts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial; Procedural Ruling / During Jury Trial After Exclusion of Proposed Crown Expert Evidence and Before the Crown Case Closed, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Declined to Proceed Further With the Prosecution.
Outcome
Trial concluded because the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions declined to proceed further with the prosecution.
Legal Topics
['nolle Prosequi' 'director of Public Prosecutions Power to Decline to Proceed' 'trial by Jury' 'no Case to Answer' 'abuse of Process']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['nolle Prosequi' 'director of Public Prosecutions Power to Decline to Proceed' 'trial by Jury' 'no Case to Answer' 'abuse of Process']

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 Trial; Procedural Ruling / During Jury Trial After Exclusion of Proposed Crown Expert Evidence and Before the Crown Case Closed, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Declined to Proceed Further With the Prosecution.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the effect on trial proceedings when the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions exercises the power under s 9(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) and declines to proceed further with a prosecution.' 'Whether the Court had power to require the Crown to close its case in the presence of the jury and direct not guilty verdicts after being informed that the Director declined to proceed further.' 'Whether R v SE & ORS [2022] NSWDC 712 was distinguishable because the present prosecution involved a Commonwealth offence and s 9(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The power in s 9(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) is equivalent to the power to enter a nolle prosequi. Once the Crown Prosecutor informed the Court that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had declined to proceed further, the proceedings on the indictment came to an end. The Court therefore had no power to require the Crown to close its case in the presence of the jury or to direct the jury to return not guilty verdicts.

Court Disposition

Trial concluded because the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions declined to proceed further with the prosecution.

Orders

  • ["The proceedings on the indictment came to an end when the Crown Prosecutor informed the Court of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' decision." 'The Court had no power to require the Crown to close its case in the presence of the jury or to direct the jury to return not guilty verdicts.']