The Court held that s 247E(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 does not require a prosecutor to rely only upon written evidence from witnesses it intends to call; lay witnesses may refuse to provide affidavits or statements, and the prosecutor's obligation is to disclose their names and, if written evidence is later obtained, to provide it under the continuous duty of disclosure. The Court granted the EPA leave to adduce 17 supplementary affidavits, finding no actual prejudice to the defendants where the evidence related to existing allegations and most witnesses had already been identified in s 247E notices. The stay application was dismissed on the basis that the asserted unfairness arising from piecemeal service of evidence and deficient s 247E notices could be adequately cured by case management orders — including orders for précis of anticipated oral evidence and amended notices — rather than requiring the exceptional remedy of a stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members.