Legal Research
Cases
R v Adams (No 2)

R v Adams (No 2)

Case [2016] NSWSC 1359 26 September 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
Hearing dates: 22 September 2016
Date of orders: 23 September 2016
Decision date: 26 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), I order that the accused be tried by judge alone.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – application for trial by judge alone – whether in the interests of justice – where accused has limited access to funds – whether complexity of expert evidence will affect jury comprehension – whether the need for multiple directions will affect jury comprehension – potential prejudice of tendency evidence in a murder trial – application granted
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 132(4), 132(5), 132A(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 137, 165B
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
HML v The Queen; SB v The Queen; OAE v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; [2008] HCA 16
Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264; [1985] HCA 72
R v Abrahams (2013) 230 A Crim R 74; [2013] NSWSC 729
R v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1960
R v Belghar (2012) 217 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 86
R v Christie [1914] AC 545; (1914) 10 Cr App R 141
R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 661
R v Gittany [2013] NSWSC 1503
R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 165
R v Simmons; R v Moore (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259
R v Stanley [2013] NSWCCA 124
Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110
RKF v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 116
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Robert John Adams
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hobart SC (Crown)
C Parkin (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/382738

Judgment

Introduction

On Thursday 22 September 2016, I heard an application by the accused that his trial – which is listed to commence on Monday 26 September 2016, with the jury to be empanelled on the following day – be heard by judge alone.
On Friday 23 September 2016, due to the urgency of the situation, and with the consent of both counsel, I made an order that the trial proceed in that way, having indicated to the parties that I would provide my reasons for doing so today. This judgment constitutes those reasons.
I considered it important that this judgment be delivered urgently, so that, if the unsuccessful party wished to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, that could occur without the trial being unduly disrupted. As a result of that urgency, this judgment is concise.
The relevant legislation is s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (the Act), which is as follows:

132 Orders for trial by Judge alone
(1) An accused person or the prosecutor in criminal proceedings in the…

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 R v Adams (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1359
Decision Date: 26 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams (No 2) involved the respondent applying for a trial by judge alone in a criminal matter. The nature of the dispute centred around the respondent's financial limitations, the complexity of expert evidence, the potential for multiple directions, and the prejudicial effect of tendency evidence in a murder trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide related to whether the application for a trial by judge alone was in the interests of justice. Specifically, the court had to consider the respondent's limited access to funds, which may impact their ability to effectively present their case. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the complexity of the expert evidence would affect the jury's comprehension and whether the need for multiple directions would further complicate the jury's understanding of the case. Lastly, the court had to consider the potential prejudice of tendency evidence in a murder trial and how it might affect the fairness of the trial.

The court found that the application for a trial by judge alone was in the interests of justice. The respondent's limited access to funds was a significant factor, as it could impact their ability to present their case effectively. Furthermore, the complexity of the expert evidence and the potential for multiple directions would likely affect the jury's comprehension, potentially leading to an unfair trial. The court also acknowledged the prejudicial effect of tendency evidence in a murder trial, which could further impact the fairness of the trial. Based on these factors, the court granted the application for a trial by judge alone.

As a result of the court's decision, the case of R v Adams (No 2) will proceed with a trial by judge alone. This decision ensures that the respondent's limited access to funds, the complexity of expert evidence, the potential for multiple directions, and the prejudicial effect of tendency evidence are all taken into account to ensure a fair trial.

Orders