R v Choi [2019] NSWSC 1715

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Choi [2019] NSWSC 1715 Hearing dates: 29 November 2019 Date of orders: 05 December 2019 Decision date: 05 December 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: Permanent stay application dismissed Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – permanent – where accused argues trial should be stayed because he cannot freely communicate with his lawyers – where accused also argues that trial should be stayed because translator has not been provided to enable him to instruct lawyers – stay application dismissed Legislation Cited: Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 (Cth), s 16(1) Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 (Cth), s 27(1) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW), cl 119 Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention and Proliferation) Act 1995 (Cth), s 11 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Chan Han Choi (Accused) Representation: Counsel: S Callan with T Epstein (Crown) T F Woods (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Just Defence Criminal and Family Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2017/380546 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: Chan Han Choi is currently in custody on remand facing trial on a series of charges that are listed to commence before me and a jury on 24 February 2020. The Crown alleges that Mr Choi has contravened a number of Commonwealth statutes, including s 11 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention and Proliferation) Act 1995, s 16(1) of the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 as well as s 27(1) of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. The particulars of these allegations are not relevant for present purposes. 2. Mr Choi now seeks an order that his trial be permanently stayed or, in the alternative, that it be stayed pending "the provision of assurances regarding the conduct of Corrective Services NSW and other state agencies". Mr Choi relies upon two grounds in support of his application, as follows: Ground 1: Mr Choi cannot freely communicate with his lawyers because of a justifiable concern that he feels as to the infringement of his privilege. Ground 2: It is extremely difficult for Mr Choi to communicate with his lawyers because he speaks poor English and circumstances have seldom permitted the participation of an interpreter.