Duncan, Paul Parepano v Regina

The appellant, Paul Parepano Duncan, appealed against his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge's conduct during the trial was so deficient that it amounted to a miscarriage of justice under section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). The primary issue before the court was whether the judge's conduct, including episodes where he appeared to be asleep, distracted the jury and thereby interfered with the trial process. Another issue was whether trial counsel had a duty to raise concerns about the judge's conduct.

The court held that the trial judge's sleep episodes did not constitute a miscarriage of justice under the Act. The trial judge exercised supervision and control throughout the trial, and there was no evidence that the jury was distracted or that the trial was otherwise compromised. The court found that the trial judge's conduct did not interfere with his ability to supervise and control the trial. The court also considered whether trial counsel had an obligation to raise concerns about the judge's conduct. The court determined that the failure to raise such concerns did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed as the deficiencies in the trial judge's conduct did not reach the threshold required by the Act.