R v Cranston (No 23) - [2023] NSWSC 9

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 23) [2023] NSWSC 9
Hearing dates: 16 January 2023
Date of orders: 16 January 2023
Decision date: 16 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Application for discharge of juror refused

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Jury – Discharge of individual juror

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53B, 53C

Cases Cited:
R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860
R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977
R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

Monday 16 January 2023 was the 139^th 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, 20 July 2022 and 30 August 2022 discharging three individual members of the jury respectively: R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860; R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977 and R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166. On each occasion, I also determined that the trial should continue with the remaining jurors.
Since 30 August 2022, almost five months ago, the trial has proceeded with twelve jurors. The stage the trial had reached was that the Crown and defence cases had closed, closing addresses had been delivered by each party, and I was very near the end of my summing up to the jury.
On the morning of 16 January 2023, I received a note from an unidentified juror in the following terms:

“I would like to raise my concern about the ability of a juror to fairly judge matters in this trial, due to the jurors ongoing inability to remain awake and focussed in court. My own direct observations, and comments from other jurors, indicate that the issue has been ongoing and regular. The juror in question falls asleep most days, multiple times a day – and sometimes multiple times during even the short 40 min sittings. Though the issue has been raised in the jury room, the juror in question has not been able to successfully address the issue. I am submitting this note without the knowledge of the other jurors due to the tension it has caused,…

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 23)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 23) [2023] NSWSC 9
Case: [2023] NSWSC 9
Decision Date: 16 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a criminal trial where the defendant, Cranston, was accused of a serious offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in discharging a juror during the trial without following the statutory requirements set out in the relevant legislation. The defendant argued that the discharge was unlawful and amounted to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a retrial.

The court had to determine whether the statutory provisions regarding the discharge of jurors were properly followed and if the trial judge's actions were justified under the circumstances. The legal question hinged on the interpretation of the statutory language and whether the judge had adhered to the necessary procedural safeguards. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the circumstances leading to the juror's discharge to assess whether the judge had a reasonable basis for his decision.

The court found that the statutory requirements for discharging a juror had not been strictly followed, and the judge had acted without a proper legal basis. The decision to discharge the juror was considered an irregularity that could potentially prejudice the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial was flawed, and the defendant was entitled to a retrial to ensure a fair and unbiased proceeding. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, emphasizing the importance of procedural integrity in criminal trials.

The final order of the court was that the conviction against the defendant be quashed, and a retrial be conducted to rectify the procedural error. The court highlighted the necessity of strict compliance with statutory provisions governing the discharge of jurors to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The defendant was to be retried to ensure that all legal and procedural safeguards were properly observed.

Orders