Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston (No 11)

R v Cranston (No 11)

Case [2022] NSWSC 167 25 February 2022

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Pre-Trial Hearing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 11) [2022] NSWSC 167
Hearing dates: 14-15 February 2022
Date of orders: 25 February 2022
Decision date: 25 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
See paras 11, 13, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 50, 53, 56, 60, 64, 67, 72, 78, 83, 86, 88, 92, 95, 99, 102, 105, 110, 114, 117, 120, 125, 127, 132, 140, 143, 147, 151, 154, 157

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — trial — case management — pre-trial hearing — evidence — application for exclusion of evidence

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 141(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 84, 90, 97, 135, 135(c), 137
Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth), s 18(5)

Cases Cited:
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; [1988] HCA 39
Cranston v R [2020] NSWCCA 143
Petch v The Queen (2020) 103 NSWLR 1; [2020] NSWCCA 133
R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469
R v Cranston (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1102
R v Cranston (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1103
R v Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104
R v Cranston (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1105
R v Cranston (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1777
R v Cranston (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1834
R v Cranston (No 8) [2021] NSWSC 9
R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413
R v Cranston (No 10) [2021] NSWSC 1637

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Adam Michael Cranston (Applicant)
Lauren Anne Cranston (Accused)
Jason Cornell Onley (Accused)
Dev Menon (Accused)
Patrick Willmott (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Stratton SC with H Blake (Adam Cranston)
TD Anderson SC (Lauren Cranston)
P Bruckner (Dev Menon)
WR Johnson (Jason Onley)
L Brasch (Patrick Willmott)
P McGuire SC with SA Moglia and L Robb Vujcic (Crown)
Solicitors:
One Group Legal (Adam Cranston)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Pure Legal (Jason Onley)
Benjamin Leonardo – The Defenders (Patrick Willmott)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/148697; 2017/148185; 2017/149208; 2017/148776; 2020/115291
Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The trial of the accused is listed to commence on 4 April 2022. The history of the various pre-trial applications is as follows:^[1]
1. R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469 and Cranston v R [2020] NSWCCA 143 involved a pre‑trial Dietrich application by Mr Adam Cranston which is no longer relevant.

on 24 August 2020, I delivered judgments in relation to various pre-trial issues related to disclosure: R v Cranston (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1102 together with R v Cranston (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1103 which addressed an application to set aside a subpoena; R v Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104 which addressed the motion by Mr Onley, Mr Menon and Ms Lauren Cranston for a trial separate from Mr Adam Cranston given 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 Cranston (No 11)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 11) [2022] NSWSC 167
Case: [2022] NSWSC 167
Decision Date: 25 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cranston (No 11) involved the defendant, Cranston, who was facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute was primarily concerned with the admissibility of evidence during the trial. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction, where the trial judge was tasked with making critical decisions regarding the management of the case, including the handling of pre-trial hearings and the assessment of evidence. A significant issue that arose during the proceedings was whether certain evidence should be excluded from the trial due to procedural irregularities or other legal grounds.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the admissibility of evidence obtained through improper means and the application of the exclusionary rule in criminal trials. The court needed to determine if the evidence in question was tainted by any procedural breaches or if it was otherwise inadmissible under the principles of fairness and justice. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of any exclusion on the overall fairness of the trial and the rights of both the prosecution and the defence.

The court, in its reasoning, closely examined the nature and source of the evidence in question. It considered whether there were any procedural irregularities that could render the evidence inadmissible. The court held that certain evidence was obtained through methods that violated the defendant's rights and therefore should be excluded. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and protecting the rights of the accused. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence must be excluded, and this decision was pivotal in the overall proceedings against the defendant.

In conclusion, the court's final orders included the exclusion of the specified evidence from the trial. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the application of the exclusionary rule in criminal trials to ensure that justice is served. The exclusion of the evidence had significant implications for the case, potentially impacting the prosecution's ability to establish its case against the defendant.

Orders