R v Chambour; R v Khallouf (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 263

R v Chambour; R v Khallouf (No 4) [2016] NSWDC 263

The court held that the address on a subpoena as 'care of the officer-in-charge' does not render the subpoena defective and that privacy considerations justify such practice; however, in relation to the witness Isaac Parry, the Crown had not yet taken all reasonable steps (including seeking a warrant) to compel his attendance prior to the application, and therefore the s 67 application was refused at this stage. Upon there being no objection, the court issued a warrant for the arrest of Isaac Parry under s 194(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Warrant and Subpoena Compliance
Outcome
Warrant issued for the arrest of Isaac Parry under s 194(1)(b) Evidence Act 1995; s 67 application refused at this stage
Legal Topics
['subpoenas' 'practice and Procedure' 'witness Unavailability']
['criminal Law'] ['subpoenas' 'practice and Procedure' 'witness Unavailability']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Warrant and Subpoena Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether service of subpoena was sufficient to satisfy requirement to compel witness attendance' 'Whether all reasonable steps had been taken to secure attendance of witness Isaac Parry' "Whether subpoena is defective when only addressed 'care of the officer-in-charge'"]

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the address on a subpoena as 'care of the officer-in-charge' does not render the subpoena defective and that privacy considerations justify such practice; however, in relation to the witness Isaac Parry, the Crown had not yet taken all reasonable steps (including seeking a warrant) to compel his attendance prior to the application, and therefore the s 67 application was refused at this stage. Upon there being no objection, the court issued a warrant for the arrest of Isaac Parry under s 194(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Warrant issued for the arrest of Isaac Parry under s 194(1)(b) Evidence Act 1995; s 67 application refused at this stage

Orders

  • ['A warrant is to issue for the arrest of Isaac Parry at the address shown on exhibit W23, warrant not to be executed before 6am on Tuesday 4 October 2016.' 'Matter adjourned part-heard to Tuesday 4 October 2016.']