R v Al Batat (No 33) - [2021] NSWSC 340

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Al Batat & Ors (No 33) [2021] NSWSC 340
Hearing dates: 23, 24 November 2020
Date of orders: 24 November 2020
Decision date: 09 April 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Jury provided with transcripts of the closing addresses made on behalf of each of the accused, subject to minor amendments.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – jury request for transcripts of addresses – no provision in Jury Act – discretion to provide – long and complex trial – careful and thorough addresses – discretion exercised to comply with jury request

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55C

Cases Cited:
R v Bartle & Ors (2003) 181 FLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 329
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403
R v Taousanis [1999] NSWSC 107; 146 A Crim R 303
Regina v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
Abdallah Hassan Al Batat
Ying Cheng Luo
Ian Fan
Jaiyu Liu
Jacob Blake Bayliss
Nai An Li
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
B Rigg SC (Al Batat)
R Webb (Luo)
T Quilter (Fan)
N Carroll (Liu)
A Norrie (Bayliss)
D Carroll (Li)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP (Crown)
TS Law Firm (Al Batat)
Voros Lawyers (Luo)
Zahr & Partners (Fan)
George Sten & Co (Liu)
Ross Hill Lawyers (Bayliss)
Younes & Espiner (Li)

File Number(s): 2018/214586 (Al Batat)
2017/170943 (Luo)
2017/168582 (Fan)
2017/168476 (Liu)
2017/321618 (Bayliss)
2018/214894 (Li)

Judgment

During the course of its deliberations, the jury in the trial of Messrs Al Batat, Luo, Liu, Fan, Bayliss and Li sent a jury note (which became MFI 100) requesting a copy of the transcript of the closing addresses of the Crown Prosecutor and Ms Rigg, Senior Counsel for Mr Al Batat. The note, dated 23 November 2020, was in the following terms:

“Can we please get the transcripts for the prosecutor's and Ms Rigg's closing statements. We would like to cross-reference the exhibits and pieces of evidence that they refer to in their closing argument. Thank you.”

I ultimately allowed the jury to be provided with the two addresses they requested, as well as the closing addresses made on behalf of each of the remaining accused. I made this ruling subject to minor amendments being made to Ms Carroll’s closing address. These are my reasons for that decision.

The usual course

The Prosecutor initially opposed the jury having access to the transcripts of the closing addresses on the basis that it is not “something that is usually done”. I accept that the provision of such transcripts to the jury is not something usually done because of the relevant provisions of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). The relevant section - s 55C - is in the following terms:

A copy of all or any part of the transcript of evidence at a trial or inquest may, at the request of the jury, be supplied to the members of the jury if the judge…

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 Al Batat (No 33)

Details

AGLC: R v Al Batat (No 33) [2021] NSWSC 340
Case: [2021] NSWSC 340
Decision Date: 09 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of R v Al Batat (No 33) involved the defendant, Al Batat, who was on trial for criminal charges. The primary issue before the court was whether the jury, during a long and complex trial, was entitled to access transcripts of the closing addresses made by both the prosecution and defence counsel. The request from the jury came during their deliberations, and the court had to consider whether it was appropriate to provide these transcripts, given the absence of a specific provision in the Jury Act.

The legal issue centred on the discretion of the court to provide transcripts of closing addresses to the jury. While the Jury Act does not explicitly address this matter, the court considered whether the request was justified in light of the complexity of the case and the thoroughness of the closing addresses. The court had to balance the principle of open justice with the practicalities of providing such extensive material to the jury during their deliberations.

The court, after careful consideration, exercised its discretion to provide the jury with the transcripts of the closing addresses. It was determined that the complexity of the trial and the detailed nature of the addresses warranted this action. The court found that, in the interest of ensuring a fair trial and aiding the jury in their deliberations, it was appropriate to comply with the jury's request. This decision was made in the context of the overarching principle of open justice and the need to assist the jury in reaching a just verdict.

No specific final orders were noted in the text provided, but it can be inferred that the court allowed the jury access to the transcripts, thereby facilitating their deliberations in reaching a verdict.

Orders