Regina v Mamu Taipavalu [2002] NSWCCA 146

Reported Decision : (2002) 130 A Crim R 513

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Mamu Taipavalu [2002] NSWCCA 146 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60915/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 April 2002

PARTIES : Regina Mamu Taipavalu JUDGMENT OF : Stein JA at 1 & 20; Sully J at 2; Smart AJ at 21

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0696 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Freeman DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : L. Lamprati - Crown G. Wendler - Applicant SOLICITORS : S. E. O'Connor - Crown Van Houten Solicitors- Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414 at 425 CASES CITED: Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555 Prasad Direction Filippetti Direction (1978) 13 A Crim R 335 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60915/01

STEIN JA SULLY J SMART AJ

Friday 19 April 2002

REGINA v MAMU TAIPAVALU aka CHRISTIAN BIRCH JudgmENT

1 STEIN JA: I will ask Sully J to give the first judgment. 2 SULLY J: This is an application brought pursuant to s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The application seeks leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling made in the District Court in connection with the conduct of a trial, the hearing of which has been fixed to commence on Monday, 29 April instant. 3 The background to the application is as follows: on 3 December 2001 the applicant, Mr Taipavalu, was arraigned in the District Court before his Honour Judge Freeman. There was presented against him an indictment containing eight counts. Counts 1 and 2 charged separate but related firearm offences said to have been committed on 7 May 1999. Counts 3 and 4 charged separate but related firearm offences said to have been committed on 20 December 1999. Counts 5 and 6 charged drug-related offences, one said to have been committed on 21 December 1999 and the other to have been committed on 13 January 2000. Counts 7 and 8 charged two separate but related firearm offences said to have been committed on or about 29 January 2000. 4 An application was made to the learned primary Judge for the severance of the counts thus laid in the indictment, the nub of the application being the proposition that there should be five separate trials; that is to say, two separate trials, one each for one of the two drug-related offences; and three separate trials, one each for two of the related firearm offences. The learned primary Judge indicated that his Honour was disposed to order the separate trial of the two drug-related offences, but to try together the three groups, if I may so describe them, of firearm offences. 5 It is in connection with that ruling that the present application for leave to appeal has been brought.