Adams v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCCA 253

Adams v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCCA 253

A temporary stay was refused because the applicant had not made out a strong case of error in the trial judge's refusal of a permanent stay, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the jury to deliberate and reach a verdict rather than interrupting a trial at an advanced stage. If the jury acquitted or could not reach a verdict there would be no prejudice to the applicant, and if convicted he could appeal raising the same points.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Notice of Motion for Temporary Stay of a District Court Trial Pending Determination of a S 5 F Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion filed 10 November 2016 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['temporary Stay' 'permanent Stay' 'fair Trial' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'interlocutory Criminal Appeal' 'balance of Convenience']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['temporary Stay' 'permanent Stay' 'fair Trial' 'cross Examination of Complainant' 'interlocutory Criminal Appeal' 'balance of Convenience']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Notice of Motion for Temporary Stay of a District Court Trial Pending Determination of a S 5 F Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a temporary stay of the District Court trial should be granted pending determination of the applicant's s 5F appeal." "Whether the applicant had shown a strong case of error in the trial judge's refusal of a permanent stay." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interrupting a criminal trial that had reached closing address or summing up stage.']

Ratio Decidendi

A temporary stay was refused because the applicant had not made out a strong case of error in the trial judge's refusal of a permanent stay, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the jury to deliberate and reach a verdict rather than interrupting a trial at an advanced stage. If the jury acquitted or could not reach a verdict there would be no prejudice to the applicant, and if convicted he could appeal raising the same points.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed 10 November 2016 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion filed 10 November 2016 dismissed.']