R v BELL - [2019] SADC 45

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BELL
[2019] SADC 45
Reasons of His Honour Judge Brebner
1 March 2019
PROCEDURE - COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY - COURTS - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT COURTS
Accused committed for trial to Circuit Sitting of the District Court at Mount Gambier on multiple counts of theft and related charges. Sitting time required to complete trial likely to interfere with scheduling of future Circuit Sittings of the Court. Application by DPP for Change of Forum and Change of Venue.
Held:
1) Trial not sufficiently complex to warrant attention of Supreme Court. Application to change forum rejected
2) Maintenance of regular scheduling of Circuit Sittings prevails over countervailing considerations. Application for change of venue granted.
District Court Act 1991 ss 22(c) & 24(2); Criminal Procedure Act 1921 ss 118(2) & (5); District Court Criminal Rules 2014 R 265(3), referred to.
R v Harris and Daly (No 2) (1975) 12 SASR 270; R v Johnson (1978) 19 SASR 157; R v Ford [1945] SASR 118; Brown v DPP [2018] NSWCCA 94; DPP v Bennett (2004) 10 VR 355; R v Turnbull (No1) [2016] NSWSC 189; State Pollution Control Commission v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1993) 29 NSWLR 487; Rona v The District Court of South Australia and The State of South Australia (1995) 63 SASR 223; DPP v King [2019] SASC 42, considered.

R v BELL
[2019] SADC 45

The accused is charged with 20 counts of theft and six counts of dishonest dealing with documents. It is alleged that he committed the offences in the South East and he was committed for trial to the circuit sittings of the District Court at Mount Gambier accordingly.
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought orders changing the forum for trial to the Supreme Court and transferring the venue for trial to Adelaide. Both applications were opposed.
Counsel for the prosecution, Mr Norman SC, estimates that the trial will occupy some three months sitting time and he submitted, inter alia, that the complexity of the trial warrants the attention of the Supreme Court, that the accused and other people connected with the trial will be known to many potential jurors in the South East thus making it extremely difficult to empanel a jury at Mount Gambier and that the Mount Gambier Courthouse is inadequate for the proper conduct of the trial.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Griffin QC, and then Mr DeGaris, contend that the trial is not as complex as suggested, that the prosecution’s estimate of three months is pessimistic, that any difficulties in empanelling a jury can be easily overcome, that with the possible addition of temporary furniture the Mount Gambier Courthouse is equal to the task, that the presumption that trials should be conducted in the locality where the crimes are said to have been committed should stand and that the accused will incur significant additional expense if the trial is transferred to Adelaide.

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 BELL

Details

AGLC: R v BELL [2019] SADC 45
Case: [2019] SADC 45
Decision Date: 1 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bell, the appellant was convicted of an offence and sought to appeal the decision. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The matter involved the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia to hear a matter that had already been heard by the Federal Circuit Court. The appellant argued that the Federal Circuit Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that the Federal Court should have been the appropriate forum.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court needed to determine whether the matter was within the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and whether the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to hear the matter under the relevant legislation. The court also needed to consider whether the matter was within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and whether the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to hear the matter in those circumstances.

The court held that the matter was within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court. The court noted that the relevant legislation provided for the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts in certain matters. The court also noted that the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to hear the matter in those circumstances. The court further held that the Federal Circuit Court had not erred in law in hearing the matter, and that the appellant's argument that the Federal Court should have been the appropriate forum was without merit. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court did not make any further orders.

Orders