Regina v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8

Regina v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8

The Crown's late application to add an alternative count arising from the same facts did not of itself cause unfairness or oppression, and the applicant had no right to require determination of the original count or admissibility issues before amendment. Any asserted prejudice from delay, absence of committal proceedings, or possible evidentiary overlap could be managed by ordinary trial procedures and directions. The trial judge therefore did not err in granting leave to amend the indictment, but erred in ordering separate trials because the alternative counts arose from the same factual circumstances and any prejudice in a joint trial could be addressed by proper directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Order Granting Leave to Amend an Indictment; Crown Appeal Against Order for Separate Trials
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the order granting leave to the Crown to amend the indictment was granted but the appeal was refused; the Crown appeal against the order for separate trials was allowed and the order quashed.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Indictment' 'alternative Counts' 'separate Trials' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'admissibility of Blood Sample Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['amendment of Indictment' 'alternative Counts' 'separate Trials' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'admissibility of Blood Sample Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Interlocutory Order Granting Leave to Amend an Indictment; Crown Appeal Against Order for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should have been granted to the Crown to amend the indictment to add an alternative count alleging driving in a manner dangerous to another person or persons.' 'Whether the trial judge should have determined admissibility of blood sample evidence before permitting amendment of the indictment.' 'Whether a joint trial of the two alternative counts would unfairly prejudice the applicant.' "Whether delay in adding the alternative count prejudiced the applicant's ability to defend the charge." 'Whether the order for separate trials should have been made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown's late application to add an alternative count arising from the same facts did not of itself cause unfairness or oppression, and the applicant had no right to require determination of the original count or admissibility issues before amendment. Any asserted prejudice from delay, absence of committal proceedings, or possible evidentiary overlap could be managed by ordinary trial procedures and directions. The trial judge therefore did not err in granting leave to amend the indictment, but erred in ordering separate trials because the alternative counts arose from the same factual circumstances and any prejudice in a joint trial could be addressed by proper directions.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the order granting leave to the Crown to amend the indictment was granted but the appeal was refused; the Crown appeal against the order for separate trials was allowed and the order quashed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against the order granting leave to the Crown to amend the indictment is granted.' 'The appeal against the order granting leave to amend the indictment is refused.' 'The Crown appeal against the order for separate trials is allowed.' 'The order for separate trials is quashed.']