Summary
Our private client was facing harassment charges, where the trial date was set for September 2024. Due to several Court delays and the Prosecution’s failure to provide disclosure to our team, this date was pushed back on several occasions until November 2025. Our team argued that the case should be stayed due to abuse of process, which was accepted by the Court, and our client’s charges were dismissed.
Details of the Case
Originally, our client faced two charges of harassment with fear of violence. These charges were in relation to a number of phone calls allegedly made by our client and allegations that he had stalked outside the complainant’s respective houses over a short period of time.
Partner Massimo Trebar represented our client on this matter on a privately funded basis. At the trial hearing in September 2024, the Prosecution applied to amend the charges to lesser offences of harassment with no fear of violence. The case was then adjourned due to lack of Court time, where our team then made a number of disclosure requests to the Prosecution.
There were then multiple hearings over the period between September 2024 to March 2025, where our team properly requested disclosure which the Prosecution repeatedly and consistently failed to adhere to.
At the second trial listing, an incident occurred involving one of the complainants allegedly harassing our client. The Prosecution subsequently failed to investigate or review this matter despite Court directions that they should, and the Prosecution allowed key CCTV evidence to be lost.
Our Defence: Abuse of Process
On the basis of the Prosecution’s failings, our team submitted that there should be a stay of the proceedings based on an abuse of process, meaning that the case would not continue.
We argued there was an abuse of process on the following grounds:
- The historic failings of the Crown to comply with their disclosure duties.
- This latest failing to comply with disclosure requirements, following a previous application to stay proceedings because of disclosure failings.
- The number of repeated delays in this case.
- The low-level nature of the allegations.
- The allegations dating back to 2023.
- That our client was entitled to have a trial “within a reasonable time”.
- The cost incurred by our client, who was not entitled to legal aid.
- The loss of CCTV cannot be cured by an adjournment.
Outcome
The abuse of process argument was made by Barrister Joey Kwong of 9BR Chambers at a hearing in November 2025, where Joey argued that our client was unable to have a fair trial. The Prosecution opposed our argument.
The Court ultimately granted the application to stay proceedings on the basis that our client could not have a fair trial. Following the ruling, the Prosecution applied for a restraining order upon acquittal, which we opposed. The Court agreed that a restraining order would not be necessary or proportionate.
The Court also granted a Defence Costs Order for our client’s defence costs to be paid from central funds. There is also a Defence Wasted Costs application which is unresolved at this time.
Our client was extremely happy with this result and grateful to Massimo and Joey for all their help and expertise. The grant of a stay of proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court is extremely rare.
This case highlights the importance of diligent and consistent work on our team’s part to pursue the Prosecution for disclosure that was properly ordered by the Court on multiple occasions.
Looking for a specialist defence solicitor?
Have you been accused of a criminal offence? We understand how difficult this can be and the impact a criminal charge can have on your future. It’s extremely important to have trusted experts on your side to ensure all proceedings are handled justly and in accordance with legal directions.
At Lawtons, we have extensive experience in all areas of criminal law and are dedicated to securing the best possible outcome for our clients. If you need legal advice, please do not hesitate – contact a member of our specialist team today.
