R v Cranston (No 14) - [2022] NSWSC 860

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860
Hearing dates: 28 June 2022
Date of orders: 28 June 2022
Decision date: 28 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) The individual Juror 485-18 02831676 is discharged pursuant to s 53B of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW);
(2) Pursuant to s 53C(1)(b) of the Jury Act, the trial is to continue with the remaining fourteen jurors.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — where juror tested positive for COVID-19 — where trial has already been substantially delayed due to COVID-19 — juror discharged
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — order that the trial continue with remaining jurors

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 19, 53B, 53C
Public Health (COVID-19 Self-Isolation) Order (No 2) 2022 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.

Ex tempore Judgment

[Amended in accordance with the principles in Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123]

This is a trial which is set down for an estimate of 6 months, which commenced on 26 April 2022. Yesterday morning I was informed by the court officer that a member of the jury, Juror 485-18 02831676, could not attend that day due to illness. I recommended that the juror take a PCR test that morning to confirm the diagnosis. That same afternoon, I was informed that the juror had returned a positive result to COVID-19 on the PCR test.
In response to that information, the Crown made an application pursuant to s 53B of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act) for the discharge of the juror, and an order pursuant to s 53C of the Act that the trial continue with the remaining fourteen jurors.

Background

This trial was originally listed to commence on 10 August 2020. However, the trial commencement was vacated on more than one occasion throughout 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-induced disruptions.
The trial was eventually listed to commence on 4 April 2022. However, due to court room unavailability and delays in the related prosecution of a Mr Chalabian, the commencement of the trial was delayed until 26 April 2022.
The trial eventually…

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 14)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860
Case: [2022] NSWSC 860
Decision Date: 28 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved the criminal trial of a defendant, Cranston, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the management of a juror who tested positive for COVID-19 during the course of the trial. The trial had already been significantly delayed due to COVID-19 related issues, and the court was required to decide whether to discharge the affected juror or to continue the trial with the remaining jurors. The judge had to balance the imperatives of public health, the rights of the defendant, and the proper administration of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the discharge of the juror would constitute a miscarriage of justice, and if the trial could proceed with a reduced jury. The court considered whether discharging the juror would unduly prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial, and if the remaining jurors could still deliver a fair and unbiased verdict. The court also had to examine the precedent set by previous cases and the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on criminal trials.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors. The court found that discharging the juror would not result in a miscarriage of justice and that the remaining jurors were capable of delivering a fair and unbiased verdict. The court relied on previous cases and guidelines that allowed for a jury to continue a trial with fewer than twelve members, provided that the defendant's rights were not unduly prejudiced. The court also noted the substantial delays already experienced due to the pandemic and the importance of expediting the trial process where possible.

The court ordered that the trial would proceed with the remaining jurors. The defendant's right to a fair trial was preserved, and the court ensured that the jurors were aware of their responsibilities and the importance of impartiality. The court also took measures to mitigate any potential risks associated with continuing the trial under the circumstances.

Orders