DPP v Tuteru

(2023) 105 MVR 125; [2023] VSCA 188

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Interlocutory appeal
3. › Permanent stay of criminal proceedings
4. › Abuse of process
5. › Whether prosecution's conduct constituted oppressive misuse of court processes
6. › Whether trial judge erred in granting permanent stay
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 168
1. Criminal Law
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Permanent stay
4. › Principles governing grant
5. › Whether extreme or exceptional case
6. › Whether unfairness incurable by trial judge
7. › Whether remedies short of stay available
1. Criminal Law
2. › Prosecutorial discretion
3. › Decision to institute, maintain or discontinue prosecution
4. › Whether amenable to judicial review
5. › Whether refusal to explain discontinuance of charges could found finding of impropriety
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Review of discretionary decision to grant permanent stay
4. › House v The King principles
5. › Whether trial judge mistook facts, failed to regard relevant considerations, had regard to irrelevant considerations, or reached unreasonable result

Quick Take

A court considering a permanent stay application must focus on the effect of the continuation of the proceeding rather than the reasons for its institution, and must not treat the DPP's exercise of prosecutorial discretion (including decisions to discontinue charges and refusals to explain those decisions) as evidence of impropriety or oppression. The refinement and reconsideration of a criminal case through successive indictments is commonplace and does not of itself constitute abuse of process. Imputing bad faith or ineptitude to the prosecution absent cogent evidence is both unreasonable and plainly unjust.