Chief Magistrate Threatens Costs Against DPP For Ignoring Court Orders To Disclose Evidence In MDMA Case
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The case of Antoinette Kelly Williams, Malik Darel Williams and Christy Brown was discussed at length in the Summary Court today, May 26, 2026. The matter involves allegations of conspiracy to import Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), conspiracy to import Ganja, and being concerned with the importation of the drugs. Things took a turn when their attorney noted that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to comply with a court order to disclose documents. The Chief Magistrate was displeased with this outcome.
Regarding the non-disclosure by the DPP, defence counsel highlighted that the court gave very strict instructions at the previous court appearance for the DPP to disclose documents to defence counsel. This would enable defence counsel to take proper instructions from clients. Reportedly, the court ordered the DPP to do this within seven days, but the DPP did not comply.
Upon hearing this, the Chief Magistrate said:
I would have hoped that with big complaints coming in from the defence bar about the lack of disclosure from the prosecution that there would have been some improvement, but it doesn’t seem like there any.
The Chief Magistrate added:
..we have been now before the court almost a month, and the defendants have come back on a second occasion almost four weeks later, and we do not have disclosure. That is not acceptable.
The Chief Magistrate then turned to defence counsel and noted that defence counsel may make whatever application they want in terms of cost. The Chief Magistrate added: “if we don’t start doing that, then I don’t know what is going to be happening.”
The Chief Magistrate continued:
The Crown is put on notice that when I make orders for disclosure and it is not fulfilled within the time period granted, then they must expect that privately paid defendants will be seeking costs.
Disclosure must be completed within 48 hours.
The case was then adjourned to June 16, 2026.
Note to readers
Over the past year, there were several cases in the Summary Court where the DPP failed to comply with directions from the Chief Magistrate. While defence counsel repeatedly complained about this, the DPP typically does not face any consequences for non-disclosure of evidence.
Examples of these cases are below.
