A primary judge's reference to the public interest in conviction of those guilty of crime, when conducting the balancing exercise on a permanent stay application, is consistent with established authority and does not constitute error. Section 165B of the Evidence Act 1995 constitutes part of the law according to which an accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a primary judge does not err by referring generally to the availability of directions under that provision without specifying their precise content on a permanent stay application. The replacement of Longman warnings by s 165B does not itself create unfairness.
The full text is available to signed-in members.