The Queen v Edwards [2009] HCA 20
The combination of delay and lost evidence did not constitute unacceptable injustice or unfairness to justify a permanent stay; the lost evidence was not shown to occasion irremediable prejudice, and any prejudice from delay could be addressed by directions.
- Parties
- Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Peter Maxwell Edwards; Respondent: Sarunic
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania Granting Permanent Stay
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Permanent Stay of Proceedings, Reckless Operation of Aircraft, Delay in Prosecuting Offences, Lost Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Queen
Appellant
Peter Maxwell Edwards
Respondent
Sarunic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Tasmania Granting Permanent Stay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether combination of delay and lost evidence justified grant of permanent stay
- 2 Whether trial would constitute unacceptable injustice or unfairness due to lost primary evidence and delay
Ratio Decidendi
The combination of delay and lost evidence did not constitute unacceptable injustice or unfairness to justify a permanent stay; the lost evidence was not shown to occasion irremediable prejudice, and any prejudice from delay could be addressed by directions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Paragraph 1 of Supreme Court of Tasmania orders of 16 May 2008 set aside
- Application for permanent stay of proceedings on the indictment dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment