Prosecutorial fault consisting of an incorrect but prevailing understanding of the law, subsequently corrected by the High Court, is not fault of a sufficiently serious kind to justify a temporary stay of criminal proceedings pending payment of the accused's costs. Where a party seeks to exclude a Crown witness on the basis that the witness's evidence was shaped by exposure to compulsorily obtained material, the onus is on the applicant to adduce evidence supporting that contention; speculation is insufficient. A prior professional relationship between a judge and a party (such as having been Crown Advocate advising the party) does not generally give rise to apprehended bias unless the correctness of the advice is a live issue in the proceedings.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.