Regina v MAK; Regina v MSK [2005] NSWCCA 98

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v MAK; Regina v MSK [2005] NSWCCA 98

HEARING DATE(S): 18/3/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 24 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1; Bell J at 2; Hall J at 41

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal refused

Alexandroaia v R (1995) 81 A Crim R 286 CASES CITED: R v K [2002] NSWCCA 374

Regina (Respondent) PARTIES: MAK & MSK (Applicants)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2003/158 and 2003/3

K McKay (Crown) MJ Ierace SC (MAK) COUNSEL: MC Ramage QC (MSK)

S Kavanagh (Respondent) SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Applicants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2003/158 and 2003/3

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie J

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2003/158 in the Court below 2003/3 in the Court below

BARR J BELL J HALL J

Thursday 24 March 2005 Regina v MAK Regina v MSK

Judgment 1 BARR J: I agree with Bell J. 2 BELL J: The applicants sought leave to appeal against the interlocutory judgment of Howie J (the Judge) given on 15 March 2005 by which his Honour refused to adjourn their trial. On 18 March 2005 their application was heard and leave was refused. These are my reasons for joining in that order. 3 The applicants are brothers. They and another brother, MMK, are jointly charged with four counts of aggravated sexual assault. The offences are alleged to have occurred on 14 June 2002 at the applicants' home in Ashfield. The applicants and MMK are alleged to have had non-consensual sexual intercourse with the same complainant. 4 Before turning to the grounds of the application I will refer to some aspects of history that are common ground. The applicants, MMK and a fourth brother were charged with sexual offences involving other complainants, which occurred in the family home at Ashfield. Trials in relation to these matters were conducted in late 2003 before Sully J. The applicants were unrepresented and the conduct of the proceedings by them was subject to the provisions of s 294A which had been recently introduced into the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Justice Sully separated the applicants' trial from that of their co-accused. Each was convicted and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. Considerable publicity surrounded the proceedings in late 2003.