A man facing a series of serious charges is challenging a decision by a High Court master to delay his sufficiency hearing due to the State’s failure to provide necessary evidence on time. Under the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act (AJIPA), a sufficiency hearing must be held to determine if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial. Despite the original sufficiency hearing date being set for April 30, the State did not comply with the master’s directions, leading the man’s attorneys to seek his discharge. The master instead allowed an extension for the State to provide the evidence and rescheduled the sufficiency hearing for September 11. The man’s attorneys appealed this decision, and the appeal has been expedited for a hearing on October 17.
In the appeal, the man argues that the master overlooked criminal procedure rules, leading to prejudice against him. With the new legislative scheme for indictable offences, it is crucial to correct any errors to prevent unnecessary backlog in the legal system. The grounds of appeal highlight several issues, including the master dismissing the discharge application, extending the time for the State to file evidence, and converting the sufficiency hearing into a status hearing. The appeal requests the court to discharge the accused or send the matter back to the master for reconsideration.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Danielle Thompson did not oppose the expedited timeline for the appeal and confirmed that an indictment had been filed in compliance with the master’s extension. The case continues to unfold as legal arguments are presented and considered.
