R v Halmi [2005] NSWCCA 263
The District Court erred in refusing a stay by taking into account irrelevant considerations; proceedings should be stayed until the Crown pays the applicant's costs of the previous aborted trial, including specific applications' costs, as justice so requires.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Stay in District Court; Appellate Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings ordered unless and until costs are paid by Crown
- Legal Topics
- ['stay of Proceedings' 'costs Following Aborted Trial']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Stay in District Court; Appellate Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether further proceedings on an indictment should be stayed until the Crown pays costs incurred by the applicant in relation to a previous aborted trial' 'Whether the District Court erred in refusing a stay of proceedings']
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court erred in refusing a stay by taking into account irrelevant considerations; proceedings should be stayed until the Crown pays the applicant's costs of the previous aborted trial, including specific applications' costs, as justice so requires.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings ordered unless and until costs are paid by Crown
Orders
- ['Further proceedings on the indictment be stayed unless and until the Crown pays the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the previous aborted trial' 'Such costs to include costs incurred in the application before Chief Judge Blanch and the application for leave to appeal to this Court']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment