R v Mehajer [2023] NSWDC 98

R v Mehajer [2023] NSWDC 98

The application for a stay of proceedings was refused because the accused had not discharged the onus of proving indigence and inability to obtain representation through no fault of his own, and, in any event, exceptional circumstances warranted the trial proceeding without legal representation. The accused was found articulate and competent to represent himself, the trial was not complex, and the right to a fair trial could be satisfied with appropriate court guidance. The application for recusal was refused as the facts did not satisfy the test for apprehended bias.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Accused: Salim Mehajer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Recusal, Procedural Ruling Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications refused; trial adjourned for commencement
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Legal Representation, Recusal of Judge, Domestic Violence Offences, Self Representation, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Stay of Proceedings Legal Representation Recusal of Judge Domestic Violence Offences Self Representation Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Salim Mehajer

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Recusal, Procedural Ruling Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be stayed until the accused obtains legal representation
  2. 2 Whether the judge should recuse himself due to apprehended bias

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay of proceedings was refused because the accused had not discharged the onus of proving indigence and inability to obtain representation through no fault of his own, and, in any event, exceptional circumstances warranted the trial proceeding without legal representation. The accused was found articulate and competent to represent himself, the trial was not complex, and the right to a fair trial could be satisfied with appropriate court guidance. The application for recusal was refused as the facts did not satisfy the test for apprehended bias.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; trial adjourned for commencement

Orders

  • The application for the stay of these proceedings until the accused is able to arrange representation by a legal practitioner for the conduct of the trial is refused.
  • The proceedings are adjourned to Wednesday 12th April 2023 for commencement of the trial.