The Supreme Court rejected an appeal concerning whether a criminal trial should be restrained because of delay, with Murray C.J. agreeing with the conclusions of Geoghegan J. and adding brief observations.
In a judgment delivered on 7 May 2008, Murray C.J. said that establishing a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial would determine the appeal in the appellant’s favour under established Supreme Court authorities. But, for the reasons in Geoghegan J.’s judgment, including the “fade factor”, he did not consider that such a risk existed in this case.
Murray C.J. also agreed that serious delay in prosecuting grave crimes does not, by itself, justify restraining a trial. He said a stay may be warranted where the consequences for the accused or the administration of justice meet the conditions set out in earlier Supreme Court authorities. He added that courts are willing to stay proceedings where the law and interests of justice require it, regardless of whose conduct is involved.
The judgment did not decide whether any evidence would be admissible at trial. Murray C.J. said that question was exclusively for the trial judge. He also left open for a future case whether, and in what circumstances, an accused’s statement might be excluded solely because it had not been electronically recorded.
The source identifies the appellant as Brian Rattigan and the respondent as the Director of Public Prosecutions. It does not state the underlying charges, the date of the appeal’s disposition beyond the judgment date, or the specific terms of any order.