R v Read [2017] NSWDC 322

R v Read [2017] NSWDC 322

On the evidence, the Crown case is strong and cannot be characterised as foredoomed to fail. The expense and previous aborted trials, while significant, do not render the proceedings oppressive or an abuse of process. The application for a permanent stay is rejected, and the trial must proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Permanent Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for permanent stay not granted; trial to proceed.
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm']
['criminal Law'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm']

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 Permanent Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings are oppressive or an abuse of process' 'Whether the prosecution is foredoomed to fail']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the Crown case is strong and cannot be characterised as foredoomed to fail. The expense and previous aborted trials, while significant, do not render the proceedings oppressive or an abuse of process. The application for a permanent stay is rejected, and the trial must proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for permanent stay not granted; trial to proceed.

Orders

  • ['Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused' 'Trial to proceed']