Proceedings Without Accused and Safety Measures in NSW Supreme Court
📌 In brief
The court allowed legal arguments to proceed without the accused present and ordered safety measures, like a Perspex screen, to ensure everyone's safety during the trial.
📖 Technical summary
The court allowed legal arguments to proceed without the accused present and ordered measures to ensure safety during the trial.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The court allowed limited legal arguments to proceed in the absence of the accused to ensure the safety and well-being of all parties in the courtroom.
- The court directed the construction of a wall within the dock to separate three of the accused from the other two, and the implementation of a Perspex screen when the jury is not present, to prevent further violence and protect those in the courtroom.
- The court found that the incident of violence on 1 August 2016 was an escalation of misconduct that warranted serious consideration of protective measures, despite the accused generally behaving well.
- The court accepted that the Perspex screen would not be prejudicial when the jury is not present, as it would not be seen by the jury, and it would ensure the safety of court personnel.
- The court rejected the Crown's application to have the Perspex screen in place when the jury is present, due to the potential prejudice to the accused, but allowed it when the jury is absent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Crown argued that the Perspex screen should be reinstated at all times to protect against the accused leaving the dock and to prevent intimidation, but the court found no indication that the accused would attempt to leave the dock and that the screen would not prevent deliberate disruption.
- Counsel for the accused argued that the Perspex screen would give the impression that the accused were dangerous and prejudice the jury, but the court accepted this only in part, allowing the screen when the jury is not present.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court allowed legal arguments to proceed without the accused present and ordered safety measures to ensure the safety of all parties in the courtroom.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether legal arguments could proceed without the accused present and how to ensure safety during the trial.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to allow legal arguments without the accused present to ensure the smooth running of the trial and to protect the safety and well-being of all parties.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited in the judgment.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, allowing legal arguments to proceed without the accused present.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the court may allow legal arguments to proceed without the accused present if it ensures the safety and well-being of all parties.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.