R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1109

R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1109

Having considered the media material, the Court was not persuaded that the publicity made this an extreme case warranting a permanent stay. The publications generally corresponded with the committal hearing and more than six months had elapsed since the last publication identified to the Court. The Court was confident that any jurors who had read or seen the material would act consistently with their oaths or affirmations and follow directions to decide the case solely on the trial evidence and applicable legal principles. No postponement was warranted in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Manslaughter Proceedings / Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Alternatively Postponement or Adjournment, After Presentation of Indictment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'fair Trial' 'jury Impartiality' 'ex Officio Indictment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'fair Trial' 'jury Impartiality' 'ex Officio Indictment']

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 Manslaughter Proceedings / Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Alternatively Postponement or Adjournment, After Presentation of Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether publicity concerning the accused and committal proceedings was such that the accused could not have a fair trial at any time.' 'Whether, alternatively, the publicity warranted postponement of the trial until its adverse effect had settled down.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the media material, the Court was not persuaded that the publicity made this an extreme case warranting a permanent stay. The publications generally corresponded with the committal hearing and more than six months had elapsed since the last publication identified to the Court. The Court was confident that any jurors who had read or seen the material would act consistently with their oaths or affirmations and follow directions to decide the case solely on the trial evidence and applicable legal principles. No postponement was warranted in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application for a permanent stay of proceedings, or indeed any stay of proceedings, is refused.']