R v Cranston (No 12) - [2022] NSWSC 564

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 12) [2022] NSWSC 564
Hearing dates: 4-5 May 2022
Date of orders: 5 May 2022
Decision date: 05 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Grant jury’s request for a copy of the transcript of the opening addresses.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – jury – access to transcript – whether to grant jury request for copy of transcript of opening address

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55C
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 159

Cases Cited:
Constitution, s 80
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Parhizkar v R (2014) 88 NSWLR 647; [2014] NSWCCA 240
R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329; (2003) 181 FLR 1
R v BB (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1393
R v Perish; R v Lawton; R v Perish [2011] NSWSC 1155
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54
R v Taousanis [1999] NSWSC 107; (1999) 146 A Crim R 303

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Adam Michael Cranston (Accused)
Lauren Anne Cranston (Accused)
Jason Cornell Onley (Accused)
Dev Menon (Accused)
Patrick Willmott (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGuire SC with J Paingakulam and C Tran (Crown)
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)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
One Group Legal (Adam Cranston)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Pure Legal (Jason Onley)
The Defenders (Patrick Willmott)

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

PAYNE JA: On 26 April 2022, the accused Adam Michael Cranston, Lauren Anne Cranston, Dev Menon, Jason Cornell Onley and Patrick John Willmott pleaded not guilty to the following two counts in an indictment presented on that day:

“1. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe, Daniel Rostankovski and divers others with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person, namely the Commonwealth.
Contrary to section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
…
2. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe and divers others to deal with money of a value of $1,000,000 or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime.
Contrary to sections 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).”

A jury of 15 were empanelled and on the afternoon of 26 April the Crown’s opening address commenced. There was an adjournment of some days by reason of juror illness.…

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 12)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 12) [2022] NSWSC 564
Case: [2022] NSWSC 564
Decision Date: 05 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 12), the defendant was on trial for an offence against the criminal code. The crux of the dispute was whether the jury should be granted access to a copy of the transcript of the opening address by the prosecution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the jury's request for a copy of the transcript of the prosecution's opening address should be granted. This question hinged on the balance between the jury's right to fully understand the case and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court had to consider whether providing the transcript would assist the jury in understanding the case without compromising the integrity of the trial process.

The court, after examining the relevant case law and principles of criminal procedure, determined that the jury's request should not be granted. The court reasoned that while the jury's comprehension of the proceedings is crucial, the potential for the jury to be influenced by extraneous information in the transcript could undermine the fairness of the trial. The court concluded that the best practice was to ensure the jury could follow the proceedings through live presentations and notes, rather than relying on a transcript which could introduce additional complexities. The decision was made in the interest of maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the trial process.

The final orders of the court were that the jury's request for a copy of the transcript of the prosecution's opening address be refused. The court's decision was grounded in the need to preserve the fairness and impartiality of the trial while ensuring that the jury had adequate means to understand and follow the proceedings.

Orders