| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1464 of 2001
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BOHDAN WEISS |
---
Ruling No. 2 (2nd Trial)
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF RULING: | 13 March 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bohdan Weiss | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 154 | |
---
Criminal law and procedure – murder – jury – Judge’s directions to jury panel – provision of particulars of proposed prosecution witnesses – s. 32(1)(c) Juries Act 2000.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr P. Faris QC | OPP |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Lovitt QC | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Section 32(1)(c) Juries Act 2000 provides that the Court must inform a jury panel of the names of the principal witnesses expected to be called in the trial. In any event that is a course the Court long has followed. Today I am requested by senior counsel for the prosecution, Mr Faris, and by senior counsel for the accused, Mr Lovitt, to inform the panel of the names of all the witnesses expected to be called in the trial. Their request is a prudential one, we having lost a previous jury in this case through unanticipated geographical connection of one juror with the locality of relevant evidence.
I am not persuaded that the formal ritual of reading out 20 or 30 or 40 names is either a sensible or a rational methodology. For it to be meaningful, I think something needs to be added, at least the suburb in which the persons live, if not their occupations, especially with names which are frequent. Such particularity can bring its own problems in train. But in any event, simply the ritual incantation of a list of names on the back of a presentment I consider is not a useful or indeed efficacious procedure.
However, as both senior counsel before me have joined in requesting it, and given the fact that in this particular case a juror in the first trial lived in the area as to which evidence was to be led and which during the evidence of the first witness caused the discharge of the first jury, I am prepared on this occasion to accede to the blandishments of both counsel. But I would not want this exceptional course, taken in part because the first jury has been discharged, to be regarded as a precedent for a procedure which I consider is a ritual incantation.
-----------------------------
- AGLC
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Weiss [2002] VSC 154
- Case
- [2002] VSC 154
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the trial judge’s directions adequately informed the jury of the content of the witnesses’ evidence, which is a requirement under the Juries Act 2000. The court examined the nature and extent of the particulars given to the jury and whether they provided a sufficient basis for the jury to make an informed decision about the potential witnesses. The court also evaluated whether the directions were clear and precise, allowing the jury to understand the potential evidence that would be presented by the prosecution witnesses. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge’s directions were appropriate and complied with the statutory requirements.
Based on its findings, the court determined that the trial was conducted fairly, and the jury’s decision was not affected by any deficiencies in the directions provided by the judge. The court dismissed the appeal brought by Weiss on the grounds that there was no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury. Consequently, the conviction for murder was upheld, and Weiss remained liable for the offence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.