RUTKOWSKI v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [1988] NSWCA 133

RUTKOWSKI v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, MAHONEY and MCHUGH JJA 28, 29 October 1987, 25 March 1988 [1988] NSWCA 133

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE abuse of Process — stay of criminal trial — allegedly fraudulent conduct in 1980 — Corporate Affairs Commission begins investigation in 1982 — accused interviewed 1983 — information exhibited 1985 — committed for trial 1986 — trial fixed November 1987 — application for stay on the basis of (a) delay and (b) Proposed tender of witnesses not called at committal — stay refused by Thorley DCJ — summonses to Court of Appeal — summonses expedited — order made dismissing summonses — subsequently accused pleads guilty and given bonds — held (by Kirby P Mahoney JA agreeing) It is not necessary or appropriate in the circumstances for the Court to provide reasons dealing with all of the matters argued. It is sufficient to say that, in the fact proved the case is not one attracting the exceptional jurisdiction to provide a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, which is to be exercised sparingly and with the utmost caution. Watson v Attorney General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685; (1987) 20 Leg Rep SL 1 applied. Herron v McGregor & Ors (1986) 6 NSWLR 246; Aboud v Attorney General (NSW) unreported, CA, 16 October 1987; (1987) NSWJB 200 and Stevens v The District Court of New South Wales & Ors unreported. CA, 12 November 1987; (1987) NSWJB 221 referred to; (per McHugh JA) no error is shown in the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court.

JUDGES — reasons — extent of — necessity of — application for permanent stay of criminal proceedings — application dismissed with costs, reasons reserved — necessity of extensive reasons — detailed questions argued — claimants plead guilty at trial and given bonds — legislative enactments affect jurisdiction of Court of Appeal in such proceedings — desirability of conserving Court's reasons to cases in which they have practical importance to parties — held: (by Kirby P, Mahoney JA agreeing) It is not necessary for the Court to deal in its reasons with all of the argument advanced by the parties. Crimes Act 1900, s176A Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Act 1987 Supreme Court (Appeals) Amendment Act 1987