Morris v The Queen

[1993] NTSC 82

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Indictment
3. › Stay of proceedings
4. › Indictment for offence different from that committed for trial
5. › Aggravated robbery charged where committal was for robbery simpliciter
6. › Whether stay pending fresh committal proceedings should be granted
7. › Whether unfairness remediable by pre-trial hearing
8. › Criminal Code (NT), ss 211(1), (2), 299, 339(1)
9. › Evidence Act (NT), s 26L
1. Criminal Law
2. › Committal proceedings
3. › Importance of committal proceedings
4. › Loss of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
5. › Whether loss of cross-examination opportunity at committal constitutes unfairness warranting stay of indictment
6. › Whether pre-trial hearing adequate substitute
1. Criminal Law
2. › Indictment
3. › Power to indict for offence other than that committed for trial
4. › Scope of power under Criminal Code (NT), s 299
5. › Whether power limited to corrective function
6. › Whether indictment must be supported by evidence at preliminary proceedings

Quick Take

Where the Crown indicts for an aggravated form of an offence under s 299 of the Criminal Code (NT) after committal on the lesser charge, the loss of the opportunity to cross-examine at committal on the circumstance of aggravation does not of itself warrant a stay; a pre-trial hearing under s 26L of the Evidence Act may provide an adequate alternative remedy. An applicant seeking a stay for fresh committal must demonstrate that the stay is the only means of avoiding unfairness at trial.