Regina v Joyce [2003] NSWCCA 84

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Joyce [2003] NSWCCA 84 revised - 9/04/2003 HEARING DATE(S) : 31/03/2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Dunford J at 1; Simpson J at 2; Hidden J at 3 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders - refusal to grant permanent stay of retrial - refusal to order production of documents on subpoena - relevant considerations on stay application LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (s5F) Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23 CASES CITED : Nye v State of NSW [2002] NSWSC1267 R v Crisologo (1997) 99 ACrim R 178 R v H [2002] NSWCCA 355 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 PARTIES : Regina James Patrick Joyce FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60048/2003 COUNSEL : P Ingram (Crown) R A Bonnici (Applicant) SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor (Crown) Wesley Community Legal Service (Applicant)

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 92/11/0125 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Dodd DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60048/03

DUNFORD J SIMPSON J HIDDEN J

8 April, 2003 REGINA v James Patrick JOYCE Judgment 1 DUNFORD J: I agree with Hidden J. 2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Hidden J. 3 HIDDEN J: This is an application under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by Dodd DCJ on 16 and 17 December 2002. 4 The applicant is awaiting retrial upon two charges of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. There had been a trial in May 2002 before Woods DCJ, but the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict in respect of either charge. An application to the Director of Public Prosecutions to discontinue the proceedings was refused. On 16 December 2002 Dodd DCJ heard an application for a permanent stay of the proceedings. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the applicant called upon a subpoena to the Director of Public Prosecutions to produce certain documents but, objection having been taken by the Crown prosecutor, his Honour declined to order production of those documents. On the following day his Honour gave judgment refusing the application for a permanent stay. It is against both those decisions that the present application for leave to appeal is brought.