› Jurisdictional prerequisites for proceeding in absence of defendant
Criminal procedure
› Service of process
› Attempted Service Report — function and limitations
Criminal procedure
› Service of process
› Methods of service under Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 27 and Joint Criminal Rules 2022
Quick Take
1The powers to proceed ex parte under ss 27C, 62 and 62BA of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) are each conditioned upon the defendant having been duly served with a summons; service is not merely a discretionary consideration but a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the filing of an Attempted Service Report under r 36.3 of the Joint Criminal Rules 2022 does not constitute service, perfect defective service, or dispense with the requirement for service.
2A telephone call informing a defendant of the existence of court documents is not an authorised method of service under s 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the Joint Criminal Rules, and a defendant's refusal during such a call to attend a police station to collect documents cannot be characterised as deliberate refusal or evasion of service within the meaning of Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635, particularly where alternative authorised methods of service remained available to the prosecution.
3Where a conviction is entered following an ex parte hearing at which the defendant was neither served with the summons nor shown to have been aware of the hearing date, the absence of a presently identified defence cannot fairly be treated as demonstrating that no miscarriage of justice occurred, because the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to make informed decisions about how to exercise procedural and substantive rights.
