Regina v JOYCE [2003] NSWCCA 280

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v JOYCE [2003] NSWCCA 280 revised - 3/10/2003 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/09/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Tobias JA at 36; Howie J at 37; Shaw J at 1 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - appeal from interlocutory decision to refuse permanent stay - principles in Dietrich v The Queen - no error demonstrated LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 5F Attorney General for NSW v Milat (1995) 37 NSWLR 370; Barron v Attorney General (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 215; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; Falconer v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 30; CASES CITED : House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; R v Joyce [2003] NSWCCA 84; R v Subramaniam [2002] NSWCCA 372; Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; PARTIES : Regina v Dr James Patrick JOYCE FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60048/03 COUNSEL : In person - Applicant P Ingram - Crown SOLICITORS :

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 02/11/0125 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Hosking DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60048 of 2003

Tobias JA Howie J Shaw J

27 September 2003 Regina v Dr James Patrick JOYCE

JUDGMENT 1 Shaw J: This is an appeal pursuant to s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against an interlocutory judgment of Judge Hosking, SC, given on 8 May 2003. In that judgment his Honour denied a permanent stay of an indictment charging the applicant with two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grevious bodily harm pursuant to s 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). His Honour did grant a temporary stay of the indictment, allowing the applicant nine months to raise finances to afford legal expenses. It might be better described as an adjournment of the trial on the basis that the Crown would not present an indictment against the applicant for a period of nine months, but for present purposes the decision will be described as a stay. The basis of that decision is in reliance upon principles explained by the High Court of Australia in Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292.