Regina v Robert Joseph DUNN [2000] NSWCCA 171

Regina v Robert Joseph DUNN [2000] NSWCCA 171

The indemnity granted to the appellant pursuant to section 13 protected against prosecution only for offences directly associated with the corrupt payment to police and acts intertwined with those offences, particularly involving complainant A (counts 1–11), not for all acts of paedophilia or prescribed sexual offences. The section 14 undertaking only ensured evidence provided would not be used against him, not immunity from prosecution. The appellant failed to establish on the probabilities that he held a belief of comprehensive immunity, nor did the conduct of prosecuting authorities constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Robert Joseph Dunn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment Refusing Permanent Stay
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of learned primary Judge affirmed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Indemnity From Prosecution, Undertaking Not to Use Evidence, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Stay of Proceedings Indemnity From Prosecution Undertaking Not to Use Evidence Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Robert Joseph Dunn

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment Refusing Permanent Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was protected from prosecution for prescribed sexual offences by the indemnities and undertakings provided.
  2. 2 Interpretation and scope of indemnities and undertakings granted under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
  3. 3 Whether prosecuting authorities’ conduct constituted an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The indemnity granted to the appellant pursuant to section 13 protected against prosecution only for offences directly associated with the corrupt payment to police and acts intertwined with those offences, particularly involving complainant A (counts 1–11), not for all acts of paedophilia or prescribed sexual offences. The section 14 undertaking only ensured evidence provided would not be used against him, not immunity from prosecution. The appellant failed to establish on the probabilities that he held a belief of comprehensive immunity, nor did the conduct of prosecuting authorities constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of learned primary Judge affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of learned primary Judge affirmed