R v Cranston (No 19) - [2022] NSWSC 1580

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 19) [2022] NSWSC 1580
Hearing dates: 14 October 2022; 17 November 2022
Date of orders: 21 November 2022
Decision date: 21 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
See paragraph [26]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – five co-accused – order of defence closing addresses – where indictment lists co-accused alphabetically – whether addresses should occur in reverse indictment order

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (UK)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104
Fletcher (Public Officer) v Crosbie (1842) 2 M & Rob 417
R v Antill and Brown (1863) 2 SCR (NSW) 50
R v Barber (1844) 1 Car & K 434
R v Kelly [1963] VR 325
R v Meadows [1856] 2 Jur NS 718
R v Orton [1922] VLR 469
R v Qaumi (No 39) [2016] NSWSC 797
R v Richards (1844) 1 Cox 62
R v Webb and Hay (1992) 64 A Crim R 38

Texts Cited:
Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases
United Kingdom, Criminal Law Revision Committee, Fourth Report: Order of Closing Speeches, (September 1963)

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

PAYNE JA: This judgment concerns a little explored aspect of criminal procedure in cases where multiple accused are joined on one indictment.
It is a practice apparently often observed in criminal cases in NSW where there are multiple accused that counsel for the accused “cross examine down” the indictment and “address up the indictment”. Justice Hamill in R v Qaumi (No 39) [2016] NSWSC 797, said that there was a “general rule of practise” that the counsel for the accused in a multi-accused trial should “cross examine down” and “address up” the indictment (at [6]). His Honour in that judgment was not addressing this issue directly, but rather describing how fairness would be best ensured in the trial before him when determining the order in which counsel for various co-accused would cross-examine.
Despite very experienced Senior Counsel, Mr Stratton SC, supporting the practice and the remarks of Hamill J about a “general rule”, the attempts of the parties to explain the basis of the “general rule” have proven elusive. I have concluded it is not a practice…

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 19)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 19) [2022] NSWSC 1580
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1580
Decision Date: 21 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 19), five co-accused faced criminal charges and were subject to the procedural intricacies of criminal trials in Australia. The dispute centred around the order in which the defence closing addresses should be delivered, particularly in relation to the sequence of the co-accused. The matter was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue the court was required to resolve was whether the defence closing addresses should follow the order in which the co-accused were listed in the indictment or whether the order should be reversed. The indictment listed the co-accused alphabetically, and the question was whether the defence counsel should address the jury in the same sequence or in the reverse order.

The court meticulously examined the relevant legal principles and the procedural guidelines. It concluded that the alphabetical order of the co-accused in the indictment did not dictate the order of the defence closing addresses. The court emphasised that the order of the addresses was a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, who should consider what is in the interests of justice. Given the specific circumstances of this case, the court found that delivering the addresses in the reverse order was appropriate, ensuring fairness and clarity for the jury.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that the order of the defence closing addresses need not strictly follow the alphabetical order of the co-accused as listed in the indictment. The judge exercised their discretion to determine the sequence of addresses, which in this instance was in the reverse order, to best serve the interests of justice.

Orders