Regina v MAK; Regina v RS; Regina v MSK; Regina v MRK; Regina v MMK [2003] NSWSC 849

Regina v MAK; Regina v RS; Regina v MSK; Regina v MRK; Regina v MMK [2003] NSWSC 849

The mandatory procedures under s 294A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) for vicarious cross-examination by a person appointed by the court create an unacceptable risk of positive injustice in a joint trial with mixed represented and unrepresented accused and must be avoided by ordering separate trials.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Separate Trials
Outcome
separate trial application granted
Legal Topics
['separate Trial Applications' 'fair Trial Rights' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law'] ['separate Trial Applications' 'fair Trial Rights' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'sexual Offences']

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 / Application for Separate Trials

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether joint trial of represented and unrepresented accused creates unacceptable risk of positive injustice under s 294A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)' 'Balancing fair trial rights of accused against interests of complainants in sexual offence proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The mandatory procedures under s 294A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) for vicarious cross-examination by a person appointed by the court create an unacceptable risk of positive injustice in a joint trial with mixed represented and unrepresented accused and must be avoided by ordering separate trials.

Court Disposition

separate trial application granted

Orders

  • ['Joint trial of MMK, MRK and RS to commence as scheduled.' 'MAK and MSK (unrepresented) remanded for separate trial to be appointed; trial to be expedited and, if possible, brought back-to-back with joint trial.' 'Applications to quash the indictment and stay proceedings by unrepresented accused noted and stood...