DPP v Offe

Evidence

2. This morning, the accused tendered some additional correspondence with his former solicitor relating to the 18 items listed in the correspondence of 24 December 2024 and 23 January 2025. In additional written submissions provided this morning, the accused submitted that there has been a failure to provide disclosable material and that this means that he cannot properly test the credibility of police witnesses, consider expert opinion on mechanical and safety issues and ensure full preparation for the trial. Therefore, he repeated his submission that the trial should be adjourned.

3. The prosecution has tendered three documents. The first is a record relating to disclosure of material by the prosecution to the accused’s former solicitors at various times, including a variety of disclosures made on 24 January 2025, the day after the letter of 23 January 2025, as well as additional disclosures made on 30 January 2025. The second is correspondence with the accused’s former solicitors indicating that that material was made available to them on 24 January 2025. The third is evidence of disclosure of some additional documents relating to items 4, 5, 6, 11 and 16 in the list. I was told that this amounts to about 10 pages of material. The correspondence indicates that the prosecutor understood that this material was previously disclosed but provided it again out of an abundance of caution.

4. So far as the material listed in the correspondence of 24 December 2024 and 23 January 2025 is concerned, that was the subject of further correspondence on 29 January 2025. That correspondence clarified the position of the accused and his solicitors at that stage. The position in relation to each of the items there identified was as follows: (a) Items 1 and 2: the accused’s solicitors indicated that they would advise if any further material was required. (b) Item 3: the correspondence from the prosecution indicated that this material would be disclosed and there is no evidence of any follow-up indicating that it was not disclosed. (c) Item 4: the accused’s solicitors indicated that they would advise if any further material was required and there is no evidence of any such advice. (d) Item 5: the position is the same as in relation to item 4. (e) Item 6: the prosecution indicated that the material would be disclosed. This is amongst the material disclosed, or disclosed again, on 21 August 2025. (f) Item 7: this related to access to the truck. An inspection of the truck occurred by an agent of the accused. (g) Item 8: counsel for the prosecution indicated that there was no material in this category. (h) Item 9: the correspondence on 23 January 2025 indicated that there was no material in this category that had been identified. (i) Item 10: the position of the prosecution was that no further disclosure was required in relation to this item. (j) Item 11: this was amongst the material that was provided, or provided again, by email on 21 August 2025, in case it had not been provided earlier. (k) Items 12 to 14: the prosecution maintained the position that this material was not disclosable. (l) Item 15: counsel for the prosecution indicated that there was no material in this category. (m) Item 16: this is amongst the material that was provided on 21 August 2025, in case it had not been provided earlier. (n) Item 17: the prosecution maintained the position that this material was not disclosable. (o) Item 18: the accused’s solicitors indicated that they would request further material if they required it and there is no evidence of such a request.

5. As I have indicated, so far as those items where the solicitors for the accused indicated that an additional request would be made, there is no evidence of any unfulfilled additional request. Decision

6. The evidence before me is not sufficient to indicate that there has been a failure of disclosure or that any failure of disclosure would indicate that the trial would be unfair in any material way. Obviously, it is possible that some different complexion may be shown if there is additional or different evidence put before the court. However, having regard to the nature of the case and, in particular, the fact that the principal foundation of the prosecution evidence is what was captured on dashcam footage of the cabin of the relevant truck and the view from that cabin, it is difficult at this stage to see how additional material or matters going to the credibility of police officers are likely to be significant in the present case.

7. For those reasons, I dismiss the application for adjournment of the proceedings made orally yesterday.

Orders

8. The order of the Court is: (1) The oral application for an adjournment of the proceedings relating to a failure of disclosure by the prosecution is dismissed. I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: