DPP v Dupas (Ruling No 10)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1533 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PETER NORRIS DUPAS

---
Ruling No. 10

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	20 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Dupas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 320

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – jury trial – video of scene – access by jury to video.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr C. Hillman SC Mr A. Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Drake Mr M. Regan	Victoria Legal Aid

---

Ruling No. 10

HIS HONOUR:

I will not have the jury shown the crime scene video today. I am entirely unpersuaded about Mr Drake's concept of jury psychology. This is not a trial by 15 ostriches; it is a trial by jurors. They are entitled to have access to the evidence so that they understand it. It is wholly rational and responsible that the jury has the capacity, having heard the detailed cross-examination and evidence during the week, to have another look at the five-minute jury video; but in view of the obsession with the fact that there is a weekend I will not have the jury shown the crime scene video today. What I will do is when the jury has finished this evidence from the cemetery, I will let them see it again.

I think it is not responsible to have a crime scene video played at an opening and then again three weeks later during deliberations. The jury is entitled to have rational access to evidence, but in view of the obsession with the weekend I will not have them shown it today.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting on behalf of the Crown, against the accused, Dupas. The dispute was centred around the admissibility and use of a crime scene video during a jury trial for a murder charge. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the jury should have been granted access to a crime scene video during their deliberations. The defence argued that such access would constitute a breach of the right to a fair trial, as it would allow the jury to independently review evidence without judicial oversight. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the video was an essential piece of evidence that could assist the jury in understanding the circumstances of the crime.

The court considered the potential impact of allowing the jury to access the video independently. It found that such access could lead to jurors making their own interpretations of the evidence, which might not be guided by the legal principles and instructions provided by the judge. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, where the evaluation and interpretation of evidence are conducted under the guidance of the court. Consequently, the court ruled that the jury should not have access to the crime scene video during their deliberations.

The court's decision underscored the necessity of ensuring that juries rely on the evidence as presented and interpreted within the formal judicial process. The ruling was significant in maintaining the balance between the rights of the accused and the need for a fair and impartial trial. The court's decision highlighted the importance of judicial oversight in the interpretation and application of evidence in criminal trials.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established