Memory loss resulting from the act constituting the alleged offence does not, of itself, justify a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, though the possibility is not excluded in rare cases. The destruction of evidence by third parties after police release does not justify a stay where the police examination was competent and unchallenged, and the accused retains forensic options at trial. On review under s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the Court of Appeal considers afresh whether the interlocutory decision satisfies s 295(3)(b).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.