R v Coleman - [2020] ACTSC 97

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Coleman
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 97
Hearing Date:	20 April 2020
DecisionDate:	22 April 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The proceedings are to be tried by judge alone.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jury and Judge Alone Trials – Emergency legislation – court ordered judge alone trial – absence of consent by the accused – orderly and expeditious discharge of court business – interests of justice – fair trial – accused on bail
Legislation Cited:	COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 310, 318 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Public Health Act 1997 (ACT) Public Health (Emergency) Declaration Further Extension 2020 (No 9) (ACT) [NI2020-218] Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68BA
Cases Cited:	Mickelberg v The Queen (No 3) (1992) 8 WAR 236 R v UD (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 90
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mathew Coleman (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (Crown) J Sabharwal (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 226 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 9 April 2020 the Registrar of the Supreme Court issued the parties with a notice made under s 68BA(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) informing them that the Court proposed to make an order (the ‘proposed order’) that the accused be tried by judge alone.

The accused does not want to be tried in this way. Accordingly he notified the Court that he would like to make submissions to avert the proposed order. The Crown filed written submissions which helpfully set out a number of considerations that the Court should take into account. The Crown concluded:

The Crown respectfully submits the balance of the above considerations would suggest that, in this particular matter, at this particular time, it is not in the interests of justice to order a judge alone trial against the will of the accused.

The wording of the Crown’s conclusion is appropriately drawn from the terms of the relevant section, namely s 68BA(3), and in particular subsection (b).

Concise written submissions received from the accused adopted the Crown’s written submissions.

The relevant legislation is as follows:

68BTrial by judge alone in certain criminal proceedings
(1)A criminal proceeding against an accused person for an offence other than an excluded offence must be tried by a judge alone if—
(a) the person elects in writing to be tried by a judge alone; and
(b) the person produces a certificate signed by a legal practitioner stating that—
(i)the legal practitioner has advised the person in relation to the election; and
(ii)the person has made the election freely; and

(c) the election and certificate are filed in the court before—
(i)the person, or the person’s legal representative, knows the identity of the judge for the person’s trial; and
(ii)any time limit prescribed under the rules; and

(d) if there is more than 1 accused person in the proceeding—
(i)each other accused person also…

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 Coleman

Details

AGLC: R v Coleman [2020] ACTSC 97
Case: [2020] ACTSC 97
Decision Date: 22 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Coleman involved the defendant, Coleman, who was facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute was the applicability of emergency legislation that allowed for court-ordered trials by judge alone without the consent of the accused. This case was heard in a court of relevant jurisdiction, where the matter of Coleman's trial by jury or judge alone was contested.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of the emergency legislation in question, the accused's right to a fair trial, and the balance between the orderly and expeditious discharge of court business and the interests of justice. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the emergency legislation permitted a judge alone trial when the accused was on bail and did not consent to such a trial.

In delivering its decision, the court examined the emergency legislation and its provisions for judge alone trials in the context of public emergencies. It considered the accused's right to a fair trial under the common law and statutory protections, alongside the broader societal interests in ensuring that the courts could function effectively during emergencies. The court concluded that the legislation, designed to facilitate the swift resolution of cases during a public emergency, could be applied to cases where the accused was on bail. The court found that the absence of consent by the accused did not preclude the application of the legislation when it served the interests of justice and the efficient administration of court business.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings against Coleman were to be tried by a judge alone, in accordance with the emergency legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceedings are to be tried by judge alone.

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.