Romolo v R [2016] NSWCCA 240

Romolo v R [2016] NSWCCA 240

The Court found that the trial judge had proper regard to the prejudice and options available to the applicant. While acknowledging the threats and their effect on the defence, it determined that neither the circumstances nor the limitations rendered the trial unfair so as to warrant a permanent stay. The applicant could put his substantive defence before the jury, albeit with restrictions, and the public interest in prosecution of serious crime weighed against granting a stay.

Parties
Applicant: Marco Romolo; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Fair Trial, Threats to Applicant and Family, Presentation of Defence, Prejudice at Trial
Criminal Law Permanent Stay of Proceedings Fair Trial Threats to Applicant and Family Presentation of Defence Prejudice at 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco Romolo

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge failed to have regard to prejudice to applicant in presentation of his case at trial
  2. 2 Whether a closed court would allow applicant to put his substantive defence before jury
  3. 3 Whether permanent stay should be granted due to threats against applicant and family

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the trial judge had proper regard to the prejudice and options available to the applicant. While acknowledging the threats and their effect on the defence, it determined that neither the circumstances nor the limitations rendered the trial unfair so as to warrant a permanent stay. The applicant could put his substantive defence before the jury, albeit with restrictions, and the public interest in prosecution of serious crime weighed against granting a stay.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.