Caruso v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 138

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0349
PETER CARUSO	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, NEAVE and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 June 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 138
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2010] VSC 354 (Justice King)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Jury empanelment – Murder – Failure of judge to inform members of the jury panel of the name of the deceased and the date and place of death not a breach of s 32 of the Juries Act 2000 – Failure to arraign the accused before members of the jury panel not a breach of the rules of natural justice – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M J Croucher SC with Ms C A Boston	Vassis & Co
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnett	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA
REDLICH JA:

After a trial in the Supreme Court, the appellant was convicted on a charge of murdering his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife by repeatedly striking her head with a hatchet. The appellant’s case was that his wife was killed by an unknown assailant in the course of a robbery.

The appellant has been granted leave to appeal against his conviction on the following ground:

The trial miscarried as a result of fundamental procedural irregularities, namely, the learned trial judge’s failure:
(a)to provide the whole of the jury panel with information relevant to the excuse process prior to empanelment, as required by s 32 of the Juries Act 2000; and
(b)to have the applicant arraigned in front of the whole of the panel from which the jury was struck.

Section 32 of the Juries Act (‘the Act’) requires information to be given to jury panels in order that the potential jurors may seek to be excused from acting as jurors at the trial, on the basis, inter alia, that they would be unable to consider the case impartially. The section provides:

32 Information for panel
(1)The court must inform the panel, or cause them to be informed, of the following information—
(a) the type of action or charge;
(b)the name of the accused in a criminal trial or the names of the parties in a civil trial;
(c)the names of the principal witnesses expected to be called in the trial;

(d) the estimated length of the trial;
(e) any other information that the court thinks relevant.
(2)The court must then call on persons on the panel to seek to be excused from jury service on the trial.
(3)The court may excuse a person from jury service on the trial if the court is satisfied that the person—
(a)will be unable to consider the case impartially; or
(b)is unable to serve for any other reason.

(4)Unless the court otherwise orders, a person excused from jury service under subsection (3) must return…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Caruso v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Caruso v The Queen [2012] VSCA 138
Case: [2012] VSCA 138
Decision Date: 27 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a criminal case where the defendant, Caruso, was charged with murder. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge's failure to inform the jury panel of the name of the deceased and the date and place of death constituted a breach of section 32 of the Juries Act 2000. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to arraign the accused before the jury panel resulted in a breach of the rules of natural justice. The appeal raised questions about the adequacy of the trial procedures and their compliance with statutory and common law requirements.

The court considered the statutory provisions outlined in section 32 of the Juries Act 2000, which mandates the inclusion of specific information during the empanelment of a jury in criminal trials. The court noted that while the omission of the deceased's name and details of the offence was significant, it did not necessarily render the trial unfair. The court further explored whether the absence of arraignment before the jury panel violated the principles of natural justice, concluding that it did not. The court held that the omission did not prejudice the defendant or affect the fairness of the trial, thus finding no breach of the rules of natural justice. The court determined that the errors, though notable, did not reach a level that warranted interference under the doctrine of no point of principle.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The court underscored that while procedural errors are to be avoided, they do not automatically invalidate a trial. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements but found that the omissions in this case did not undermine the fairness or integrity of the trial process. The appeal was therefore rejected, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders