JSM v R [2010] NSWCCA 255

JSM v R [2010] NSWCCA 255

The District Court had power under s 129(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to proceed with the trial despite the indictment not having been filed within the time required. It was open to find that no binding authorised charge negotiation outcome had been made, the requested indemnities were not granted, and the applicant had not shown relevant prejudice warranting a stay or other relief. Any potential concern about the agreed facts and psychological reports was removed by the Crown's undertaking that the trial prosecutor and instructing solicitor would have no knowledge of their contents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders in Criminal Proceedings Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted But Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Appeal' 'indictment Presented Out of Time' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 129' 'charge Negotiation' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'prosecutorial Indemnity']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['interlocutory Appeal' 'indictment Presented Out of Time' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 129' 'charge Negotiation' 'stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'prosecutorial Indemnity']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Orders in Criminal Proceedings Under S 5 F(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Granted But Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, despite failure to present an indictment within the time required by s 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), the District Court could proceed with the trial.' 'Whether the Crown was bound by the plea proposal communicated in the letter dated 21 October 2009.' 'Whether the applicant had suffered relevant prejudice or detriment warranting a stay of proceedings or other orders.' 'Whether a prosecutor and instructing solicitor without knowledge of the induced statement, agreed facts or psychological report should conduct the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court had power under s 129(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to proceed with the trial despite the indictment not having been filed within the time required. It was open to find that no binding authorised charge negotiation outcome had been made, the requested indemnities were not granted, and the applicant had not shown relevant prejudice warranting a stay or other relief. Any potential concern about the agreed facts and psychological reports was removed by the Crown's undertaking that the trial prosecutor and instructing solicitor would have no knowledge of their contents.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']