Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston (No 13)

R v Cranston (No 13)

Case [2022] NSWSC 661 25 May 2022

Jurisdiction

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

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 13) [2022] NSWSC 661
Hearing dates: 20 May 2022
Date of orders: 20 May 2022
Decision date: 25 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Refuse the application to discharge the jury or to sever Mr Onley from the indictment.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Application to discharge jury — where evidence inadvertently adduced — any possible prejudice sufficiently addressed by jury direction
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Separate trial application — where evidence inadvertently adduced affecting one of five co-accused — any possible prejudice sufficiently addressed by jury direction

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5, 135.4, 400.3
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 84, 135, 137, 184

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General (NSW) v Willessee [1980] 2 NSWLR 143
Cox v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 66
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Dia v R [2014] NSWCCA 9
Dries v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 33
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Hinch v Attorney-General (Vic)(1987) 164 CLR 15; [1987] HCA 56
Maxwell v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 309
Medich v R [2021] NSWCCA 36; (2021) 390 ALR 398
Miller v R [2015] NSWCCA 206; (2015) 252 A Crim R 486
R v Ahola(No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703
R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413
R v Qaumi (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 15

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; 2017/148776; 2017/149208; 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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

On 20 May 2022, I refused an application by Mr Onley to discharge the jury or, in the alternative, that he be severed from the indictment. These are my reasons for refusing to make those orders.
The application was made on day 18 of the joint trial of Adam Cranston, Lauren Cranston, Dev Menon, Jason Onley and Patrick Willmott. Each has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person contrary to s 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth), and one count of conspiracy to deal with money of a value of $1,000,000 or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code.
A number of witnesses have…

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 13)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 13) [2022] NSWSC 661
Case: [2022] NSWSC 661
Decision Date: 25 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 13), the appellant, one of five co-accused, sought to discharge the jury in a criminal trial held in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant's contention was that the inadvertent admission of evidence that should not have been presented to the jury would cause undue prejudice, warranting a discharge. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the jury could be sufficiently directed to ignore the prejudicial evidence, thereby allowing the trial to proceed without discharging the jury.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the inadvertent admission of evidence that should not have been before the jury warranted a discharge of the jury, and whether the trial judge could sufficiently address any prejudice caused by the admission of such evidence through a direction to the jury. The court had to consider whether the prejudicial evidence was so significant that it would irreparably affect the fairness of the trial, or if a proper direction could mitigate any potential prejudice.

The court reasoned that the inadvertent admission of evidence could potentially prejudice the appellant, but found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient to address any such prejudice. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately directed the jury to disregard the prejudicial evidence, and that this direction was sufficient to ensure the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to discharge the jury.

In summary, the court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury adequately mitigated any prejudice caused by the inadvertent admission of evidence, thereby allowing the trial to proceed without discharging the jury. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial continued as per the original schedule.

Orders