R V KADDOUR & ZREIKA [2012] NSWDC 50

R V KADDOUR & ZREIKA [2012] NSWDC 50

The Crime Commission initially acted without malice in providing MP3 versions of the intercepted recordings, but after April 2011 it should have appreciated from the defence correspondence and affidavit that the defence was relying on time and date information affected by the MP3 conversion and was misunderstanding the material. Its failure to correct that misunderstanding was a serious fault attributable to the prosecuting authorities, caused the defence to incur wasted costs and made it unfair for the accused to bear those costs. This was a rare and exceptional case justifying a temporary stay until reasonable wasted defence costs are paid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Notice of Motion by Both Accused for a Stay Until Wasted Defence Costs Are Paid
Outcome
Application granted; further trial stayed until the Crown pays reasonable defence costs incurred because the trial date was vacated.
Legal Topics
['temporary Stay of Proceedings' 'wasted Costs' 'subpoena Compliance' 'telephone Intercept Recordings' 'disclosure' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['temporary Stay of Proceedings' 'wasted Costs' 'subpoena Compliance' 'telephone Intercept Recordings' 'disclosure' 'fair Trial']

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 / Notice of Motion by Both Accused for a Stay Until Wasted Defence Costs Are Paid

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the further trial should be temporarily stayed until the Crown pays reasonable defence costs wasted because the trial date was vacated.' "Whether the Crime Commission's provision of MP3 versions rather than true PCM copies of intercepted telephone recordings caused unfairness for which the prosecuting authorities should be held responsible." 'Whether fault sufficient for a temporary stay can be established by serious negligence, inadvertence or omission rather than deliberate misconduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crime Commission initially acted without malice in providing MP3 versions of the intercepted recordings, but after April 2011 it should have appreciated from the defence correspondence and affidavit that the defence was relying on time and date information affected by the MP3 conversion and was misunderstanding the material. Its failure to correct that misunderstanding was a serious fault attributable to the prosecuting authorities, caused the defence to incur wasted costs and made it unfair for the accused to bear those costs. This was a rare and exceptional case justifying a temporary stay until reasonable wasted defence costs are paid.

Court Disposition

Application granted; further trial stayed until the Crown pays reasonable defence costs incurred because the trial date was vacated.

Orders

  • ['The further trial of the accused is stayed until the Crown pays reasonable costs of the defence as incurred by reason of the trial date of 10 October 2011 being vacated on 24 October 2011.' 'Those reasonable costs are limited to what occurred after the misunderstanding was not corrected by the Crime Commission...