- Bradley v Senior Constable Chilby  NSWSC 145
- Amante v R  NSWCCA 34
Disclosure – police
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the duties of disclosure are broad, and a failure to comply with them can (and here, did) result in a temporary stay of proceedings, where police refused to produce a criminal history, facts sheets, and records of conversations between police officers and the police prosecutors.
The appellant was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm: he was alleged to have bitten the complainant’s finger down to the bone while they were at a friend’s house. Six weeks later the complainant gave a statement to police, and a couple of weeks after that the appellant was interviewed in relation to the allegation. He agreed that he’d bitten the complainant, but responded that the complainant was drug-affected, and it was done in self-defence. The Officer in Charge (‘OIC’ – referred to throughout the judgment as ‘the prosecutor’ in a way which might rankle for some criminal practitioners, and so isn’t adopted in this summary) had a conversation with a more senior officer, as well as with police prosecutors (presumably about the decision to prosecute). The appellant was released pending further investigations. The OIC was eventually advised to get some photos of the injuries from the complainant, then charged the appellant shortly after receiving those photos.