R v RP [2016] NSWDC 10

R v RP [2016] NSWDC 10

Because the accused had been arraigned, had pleaded not guilty, and was in the charge of a jury, and because the Crown conceded that the evidence could not sustain conviction and would warrant a directed verdict of not guilty, permitting the Director to terminate the trial by nolle prosequi would interfere with the normal course of the trial and have the taint of abuse of process. The Court's inherent power to protect its processes justified refusing to discharge the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Trial; Crown Application to Discharge Jury After Nolle Prosequi
Outcome
Application by the Crown to discharge the jury after nolle prosequi refused.
Legal Topics
['nolle Prosequi' 'discharge of Jury' 'abuse of Process' 'functus Officio' 'no Bill' 'autrefois Acquit' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['nolle Prosequi' 'discharge of Jury' 'abuse of Process' 'functus Officio' 'no Bill' 'autrefois Acquit' 'sexual Offences']

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 / Jury Trial; Crown Application to Discharge Jury After Nolle Prosequi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, after the accused had been arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and been placed in the charge of a jury, the Director's entry of a nolle prosequi made the Court and jury functus officio and required discharge of the jury." 'Whether allowing termination of the trial by nolle prosequi in circumstances where the Crown conceded it could not prove its case would constitute an abuse of process.' "Whether the Court's inherent power to protect its processes could prevent the Crown from terminating the trial by nolle prosequi after the trial had begun."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the accused had been arraigned, had pleaded not guilty, and was in the charge of a jury, and because the Crown conceded that the evidence could not sustain conviction and would warrant a directed verdict of not guilty, permitting the Director to terminate the trial by nolle prosequi would interfere with the normal course of the trial and have the taint of abuse of process. The Court's inherent power to protect its processes justified refusing to discharge the jury.

Court Disposition

Application by the Crown to discharge the jury after nolle prosequi refused.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application to discharge the jury is refused."]