Once a trial judge is satisfied that an interlocutory decision is of 'sufficient importance' under s 295(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, the judge must certify — there is no additional requirement that the decision be 'attended with sufficient doubt'. A mid-trial change in alternative arrangements for a complainant's evidence (from screen to remote facility) in a sexual offence trial creates a very significant risk of prejudice, as the jury is likely to infer the complainant is in fear of the accused, and at an early stage of trial the case for discharge may be irresistible where it is uncertain whether jury directions can cure the prejudice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.