Under s 68BA(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), the two limbs — orderly and expeditious discharge of court business and 'otherwise in the interests of justice' — are not competing considerations to be balanced; rather, the first limb acknowledges that expeditious discharge serves the interests of justice, and the second directs attention to additional matters. The accused's opposition to a judge alone trial, while relevant, warrants little weight absent good reasons supporting the preference, and the fact that charges are 'excluded offences' does not militate against the order during the emergency period. The Court disagreed with the view expressed in R v UD (No 2) that the accused's lack of consent is a 'powerful reason' against ordering a judge alone trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.