Citation: R v Macdonald; R v Maitland (No 7) [2022] NSWSC 1412
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 October 2022
Judge(s): Dhanji J
Background
The accused Maitland was standing trial on serious criminal charges before a judge alone. He was unrepresented throughout the proceedings. Despite having no formal legal training, Dhanji J observed that Maitland had conducted his defence with a notable degree of competence, including opening his case, cross-examining Crown witnesses, giving evidence himself, and calling and examining his own witnesses.
For the purpose of giving evidence-in-chief, Maitland had obtained the assistance of Senior Counsel appearing as amicus curiae (a friend of the court, in this context someone assisting a self-represented party rather than representing them). That arrangement allowed him to present his evidence through structured questioning. He subsequently called two further witnesses, one of whom was mid-examination when proceedings adjourned the previous day.
On the morning of 11 October 2022, Maitland applied to adjourn the trial until the following day. He sought time to obtain professional legal advice in light of how the case had developed, particularly following the cross-examination of one of his witnesses.
Legal Issues
- Whether a short adjournment should be granted to allow an unrepresented accused to obtain legal advice during the course of a criminal trial
- Whether the circumstances, including the seriousness of the charges and the accused's self-represented status, justified the delay occasioned by the adjournment
Decision
Maitland's adjournment application was based on two related concerns. First, he wanted to review the transcript of his witness's cross-examination, which he said had raised questions in his mind about the Crown's case and the relevance of certain evidence. Second, and more significantly, he indicated that an experienced barrister with knowledge of the case was available that day to advise him.
Dhanji J accepted that the transcript issue alone would not have been sufficient to warrant even a brief adjournment. The transcript had only been delivered at approximately 9:30pm the previous evening, but the court would not have granted time on that basis alone.
The critical factor was the availability of professional legal advice. The judge weighed the undesirability of any trial delay against the seriousness of the charges Maitland faced, the efforts he had made as a self-represented accused, and the importance of his right to a fair trial. The court found that, in those circumstances, a short adjournment was appropriate.
Orders Made
The trial was adjourned until 10:00am the following day to allow the accused Maitland to obtain professional legal advice.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the seriousness of charges faced by a self-represented accused is a relevant consideration when weighing any application for an adjournment during trial.
- A desire to review recently received transcript material was not, of itself, sufficient reason to grant even a short adjournment.
- The decisive factor in granting the adjournment was the immediate availability of an experienced barrister who could provide advice to the accused on the same day, limiting the delay caused to the trial.
- Where a self-represented accused has demonstrated genuine competence and diligence in conducting their own defence, that effort may form part of the context informing a court's discretionary decision on an adjournment application.
- The decision reflects the principle that the right to a fair trial, including a reasonable opportunity to understand the issues and evidence in a criminal proceeding, can in some circumstances justify a short interruption to the conduct of the trial.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment.