Edmondson v The Attorney General of New South Wales [2014] NSWLC 18

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edmondson v The Attorney General of New South Wales [2014] NSWLC 18 Hearing dates: 3 November 2014 Decision date: 11 November 2014 Before: Buscombe LCM Decision: Notices of motion seeking a permanent stay of proceedings dismissed. Catchwords: Compulsory questioning - permanent stay Cases Cited: A v Boulton and Another (2004) 204 ALR 598 and (2004) 207 ALR 342 DPP v Shirvanian (1998) NSWLR 129 Jago v District Court of NSW and Others (1989) 168 CLR 23 Lee v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 656 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 X7 v Australian Crime Commission and Another (2013) 248 CLR 92 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Scott Edmondson (Applicant) Daniel Barling (Applicant) Damian Ralph (Applicant) Eric Lim (Applicant) The Attorney General of New South Wales (Respondent) Representation: Mr B. Walker SC and Mr Goodman instructed by Walter, Maden, Jenkins solicitors (Applicants)

Attorney General of NSW: Ms N Adams SC, Crown Advocate and Mr D Kell instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2013/379612; 2013/379614; 2013/379616; 2013/379611

Judgment

Introduction 1Scott Edmondson, Daniel Barling, Damian Ralph and Eric Lim are NSW Police officers. On 18 March 2012 an incident occurred on Pitt Street Sydney during which Mr Roberto Curti tragically died. On 16 December 2013 Mr Edmondson and Mr Barling were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault in relation to Mr Curti. On the same day Mr Ralph and Mr Lim were charged with common assault in relation to Mr Curti. Each accused has entered a plea of not guilty and the charges are to be heard summarily in the criminal jurisdiction of this Court, with the hearing fixed to commence on 17 November 2014. I will hereinafter refer to the accused as the applicants, unless it is necessary to draw a distinction in the evidence concerning each of them. 2The applicants by notices of motion seek that I permanently stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. The Attorney General pursuant to a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions under s.29 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986, appeared as the respondent. 3There is no doubt that this Court possesses the power to permanently stay summary criminal proceedings for an abuse of process as part of the implied powers it possesses; DPP v Shirvanian (1998) NSWLR 129. The applicants submit that a proper application of the principles discussed by the High Court in X7 v Australian Crime Commission and Another (2013) 92 CLR 92 and Lee v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 656 should result in a permanent stay of the proceedings. I will return later in this judgment to the appropriate legal principles to be applied to this application. 4A number of persons who are mentioned in my discussion of the evidence and factual matrix in which the application is to be determined are referred to only by surname. I do so simply for expediency and no disrespect is intended.