R v Qaumi & Ors (No 55) [2016] NSWSC 1068

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 55) [2016] NSWSC 1068

Limited legal argument could proceed briefly in the absence of the accused because all accused counsel consented, the accused remained in the court complex and available for instructions, no evidence was to be adduced, the jury was absent, and the course was necessary to protect safety, emotional well-being and the orderly running of the trial. The trial was adjourned and a wall within the dock was directed because separation of the accused into two groups was clearly necessary for physical safety and emotional well-being, and construction of a physical barrier was more practical and less disruptive than an AVL arrangement. The Perspex screen was not to remain closed while the jury was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial Concerning Proceeding in the Absence of Accused, Adjournment, Dock Separation and Perspex Screen Arrangements After Violence in the Courtroom
Outcome
Limited legal argument was allowed to proceed in the absence of the accused; the trial was adjourned; a wall was directed to be constructed within the dock; and the Perspex screen was ordered closed only when the jury was not present and open when the jury was present.
Legal Topics
['violence in Courtroom' 'accused in the Dock' 'proceeding in Absence of Accused' 'courtroom Security' 'perspex Screen' 'fair Trial Prejudice' 'adjournment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['violence in Courtroom' 'accused in the Dock' 'proceeding in Absence of Accused' 'courtroom Security' 'perspex Screen' 'fair Trial Prejudice' 'adjournment']

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 Trial / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial Concerning Proceeding in the Absence of Accused, Adjournment, Dock Separation and Perspex Screen Arrangements After Violence in the Courtroom

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether limited legal argument should proceed in the absence of the accused after violence in the dock.' 'Whether the trial should be adjourned until steps were taken to ensure the safety of accused Zarshoy and Kalal.' 'Whether a physical barrier should be constructed within the dock to separate Messrs Kalal and Zarshoy from the three Qaumi brothers.' 'Whether the Perspex screen separating the dock from the courtroom should be reinstated for the remainder of the trial, including while the jury was present.']

Ratio Decidendi

Limited legal argument could proceed briefly in the absence of the accused because all accused counsel consented, the accused remained in the court complex and available for instructions, no evidence was to be adduced, the jury was absent, and the course was necessary to protect safety, emotional well-being and the orderly running of the trial. The trial was adjourned and a wall within the dock was directed because separation of the accused into two groups was clearly necessary for physical safety and emotional well-being, and construction of a physical barrier was more practical and less disruptive than an AVL arrangement. The Perspex screen was not to remain closed while the jury was...

Court Disposition

Limited legal argument was allowed to proceed in the absence of the accused; the trial was adjourned; a wall was directed to be constructed within the dock; and the Perspex screen was ordered closed only when the jury was not present and open when the jury was present.

Orders

  • ['Allow limited legal arguments to proceed in the absence of the accused.' 'Adjourn the trial until Monday 8 August 2016.' 'Direct the Sheriff and Corrective Services to construct a wall within the dock to separate three of the accused from the other two accused.' 'Direct Corrective Services Officers to put in place...