R v Cranston (No 16) - [2022] NSWSC 1166

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166
Hearing dates: 30 August 2022
Date of orders: 30 August 2022
Decision date: 31 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) The individual Juror 01052964 is discharged pursuant to s 53B(d) 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 twelve jurors.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — where juror’s employer refused to continue to provide make-up payments — where juror would suffer financial burden without make-up payments — juror discharged
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — order that the trial continue with remaining jurors

Legislation Cited:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 111, 112
Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld), s 14A
Juries Act 1957 (WA), s 58B
Juries Act 2000 (Vic), s 52
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53B, 53C, 69
Jury Regulation 2015 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General v Butterworth [1963] 1 QB 696
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1
R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860
R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977
ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2

Texts Cited:
Explanatory Memorandum, Fair Work Bill 2009 (Cth)
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 13 November 1947

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Adam Michael Cranston (Accused)
Lauren Anne Cranston (Accused)
Dev Menon (Accused)
Jason Cornell Onley (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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

30 August 2022 was the 71^st day of this trial. The trial commenced on 26 April 2022, on which day a jury of fifteen was empanelled. Since that time, I have made orders on 28 June 2022 and 20 July 2022 discharging two individual members of the jury respectively: R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860; R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977. On each occasion, I also determined that the trial should continue with the remaining jurors.
Since 20 July 2022, the trial has proceeded with thirteen jurors. However, on the morning of 30 August 2022 I received a note from Juror 01052964 in the following terms:

“Your Honour,
I was recently advised by my employer that they had decided to stop providing make‑up pay in addition to the juror payments.
Advice I’ve…

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 16)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1166
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a criminal trial where the defendant, Cranston, faced serious charges. The dispute centred on the discharge of a juror who claimed that their employer had refused to continue providing make-up payments for their absence from work. This refusal would result in a significant financial burden for the juror if they remained on the jury. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues were whether the court should discharge the juror due to the financial hardship they faced and whether the trial could proceed with the remaining jurors if the discharged juror was replaced.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing jury service and the potential impact of discharging a juror mid-trial. It considered the financial hardship faced by the juror and the implications for the fairness and integrity of the trial. The court held that the juror's financial situation was a compelling reason for discharge, particularly as the employer's refusal to provide make-up payments was beyond the juror's control. The court also noted that the remaining jurors were still capable of reaching a fair verdict, and the trial could continue with their participation. Consequently, the court discharged the juror and allowed the trial to proceed with the remaining jurors.

The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the rights of the defendant with the practicalities of jury service. By discharging the juror, the court ensured that the juror's financial situation did not unduly influence their ability to serve. The court also upheld the principle that a fair trial could still be conducted with the remaining jurors. The final orders included the discharge of the juror and the continuation of the trial with the remaining members of the jury.

Orders