R v Giovannone [2001] NSWCCA 22

R v Giovannone [2001] NSWCCA 22

The appeals were dismissed because the applicant demonstrated no House v The King error in Acting Judge Flannery's discretionary refusals. The Director of Public Prosecutions had a broad discretion to decide the order in which the false testimony trial and the re-trial of the bribery type charges would proceed, and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Interlocutory Judgments and Orders Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Leave Granted on Both Applications; Appeals From Refusals to Alter Order of Trials and to Permanently Stay Proceedings Dismissed
Outcome
Leave granted on both applications; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeals Against Interlocutory Rulings' 'prosecutorial Discretion' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'order of Separate Trials' 'perverting the Course of Justice' 'false Testimony Before Royal Commission']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['appeals Against Interlocutory Rulings' 'prosecutorial Discretion' 'permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'order of Separate Trials' 'perverting the Course of Justice' 'false Testimony Before Royal Commission']

Source-derived case record

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 Against Interlocutory Judgments and Orders Under S5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Leave Granted on Both Applications; Appeals From Refusals to Alter Order of Trials and to Permanently Stay Proceedings Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against interlocutory decisions under s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.' 'Whether the District Court judge erred in refusing to require the trial of the bribery type charges to proceed before the false testimony charge.' "Whether the Crown's decision to conduct the false testimony trial first amounted to an abuse of process or caused unfair prejudice requiring intervention." 'Whether the proceedings on all counts should be permanently stayed because of asserted delay, weakness of the Crown case, prior hung jury, alleged entrapment, prejudice, cost, medical matters, and public conscience considerations.' "Whether error was shown in the exercise of the District Court judge's discretion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the applicant demonstrated no House v The King error in Acting Judge Flannery's discretionary refusals. The Director of Public Prosecutions had a broad discretion to decide the order in which the false testimony trial and the re-trial of the bribery type charges would proceed, and the proposed order was not shown to create prejudice so fundamental that it could not be addressed by the trial judge. The accumulated matters relied upon for a permanent stay did not establish exceptional circumstances, abuse of process, or a fundamental defect going to the root of the trial.

Court Disposition

Leave granted on both applications; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted on both applications.' 'Appeals dismissed.']