R v Agius; R v Abibadra; R v Jandagi; R v Zerafa (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 482

R v Agius; R v Abibadra; R v Jandagi; R v Zerafa (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 482

The publicity in the AFR was not sensationalist, did not name the accused, included warnings against presuming guilt, and was unlikely to have been widely read by potential jurors; safeguards exist to preserve trial fairness, thus no sufficient basis for a temporary stay.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Defendant: Robert Francis Agius; Defendant: Carol Abibadra; Defendant: Deborah Judith Jandagi; Defendant: Kevin Zerafa
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
applications for temporary stay refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth, Temporary Stay of Proceedings, Pre Trial Publicity
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud the Commonwealth Temporary Stay of Proceedings Pre Trial Publicity

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Robert Francis Agius

Defendant

Carol Abibadra

Defendant

Deborah Judith Jandagi

Defendant

Kevin Zerafa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-trial publicity justifies granting a temporary stay of proceedings to ensure a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The publicity in the AFR was not sensationalist, did not name the accused, included warnings against presuming guilt, and was unlikely to have been widely read by potential jurors; safeguards exist to preserve trial fairness, thus no sufficient basis for a temporary stay.

Court Disposition

applications for temporary stay refused

Orders

  • Each notice of motion dismissed.