Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No 7) [2022] NSWSC 1412 Hearing dates: 11 October 2022 Date of orders: 11 October 2022 Decision date: 11 October 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Dhanji J Decision: Application for a short adjournment granted. Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – judge alone – adjournment application – professional legal advice to be sought – short adjournment granted Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex (Crown) Ian Michael Macdonald (Accused) John William Maitland (Accused) Representation: Counsel: P Hogan (Crown) R Rajalingam (Macdonald) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Michael Bowe Solicitors (Macdonald) J W Maitland (self-represented) File Number(s): 2015/59990; 2015/59940 Publication restriction: Nil EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED) 1. HIS HONOUR: An application has been made this morning by Mr Maitland for an adjournment of the trial until sometime tomorrow. Mr Maitland appears unrepresented. He, as is obvious, faces serious charges. 2. Mr Maitland has, thus far through the trial, appeared, to my mind, to have conducted the case with a significant level of competence despite lack of representation and legal training. He has endeavoured to conduct his case in an efficient fashion. To that end he has competently opened his case and cross-examined Crown witnesses and, to this point, presented his own case. He chose to give evidence. For the purposes of giving evidence he was able to obtain some assistance from Ms Cunneen of Senior Counsel who appeared as amicus curiae essentially for the purposes of providing Mr Maitland with an interlocutor so that he could effectively present his evidence-in-chief. It was apparent that Mr Maitland had thoroughly briefed Ms Cunneen, such that she was able to direct questions in a manner which enabled him to give the evidence upon which he wishes to rely. 3. Mr Maitland was cross-examined across some days and then completed his evidence. He then called Mr Lewis and led him through his evidence in-chief, whereupon Mr Lewis was cross-examined, that cross-examination concluding yesterday. 4. Mr Maitland then called a Mr Poole and when court adjourned yesterday, Mr Poole was part way through his examination-in-chief. 5. Mr Maitland this morning indicated that, because of the manner in which the case has unfolded, he feels he is in need of further advice. In particular, as I understand it, he says that the cross-examination of Mr Lewis has raised, in Mr Maitland's mind, issues as to his understanding of the case, what it is the Crown must prove and the relevance of certain matters. 6. Mr Maitland indicated that he wished to review the transcript of, in particular, that cross-examination to better inform his understanding, but he had not been able to complete that transcript, it having been sent only at approximately 9.30pm last night. 7. If that were the only issue I would not be inclined to grant only a short adjournment such that Mr Maitland could continue his consideration of the transcript. However, Mr Maitland assures me that he has available to him an experienced barrister with knowledge of the case available today to give him advice. 8. Regrettable as any delay is, I am mindful of the seriousness of the charge which Mr Maitland faces, the efforts he has made, despite being unrepresented, and the importance to his fair trial that he, as far as is possible, properly understand the issues and the evidence that may bear on those issues. 9. In those circumstances, I am willing to adjourn this trial until 10:00am tomorrow such that Mr Maitland can obtain professional advice. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 October 2022