R v Cranston (No 24) - [2023] NSWSC 10

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 24) [2023] NSWSC 10
Hearing dates: 18 January 2023
Date of orders: 18 January 2023
Decision date: 23 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Grant jury’s request for a copy of the transcript of the summing up.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – jury – access to transcript – whether to grant jury request for copy of transcript of summing up

Legislation Cited:
Constitution, s 80
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 159
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55C

Cases Cited:
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Parhizkar v R (2014) 88 NSWLR 647; [2014] NSWCCA 240
R v Bartle (2003) 181 FLR 1; [2003] NSWCCA 329
R v BB (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1393
R v Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
R v Perish; R v Lawton; R v Perish [2011] NSWSC 1155
R v Rogers (No 8) [2019] NSWSC 690
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54
R v Taousanis (1999) 146 A Crim R 303; [1999] NSWSC 107

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; 2017/149208; 2017/148776; 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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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: On 26 April 2022, the accused Adam Michael Cranston, Lauren Anne Cranston, Dev Menon, Jason Cornell Onley and Patrick John Willmott pleaded not guilty to the following two counts in an indictment:

“1. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe, Daniel Rostankovski and divers others with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person, namely the Commonwealth.
Contrary to section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
…
2. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Peter Larcombe and divers others to deal with money of a value of $1,000,000 or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime.
Contrary to sections 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).”

A jury of 15 were empanelled. There is now a jury of 12. As I informed the…

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 24)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 24) [2023] NSWSC 10
Case: [2023] NSWSC 10
Decision Date: 23 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 24), the respondent, Cranston, was on trial for criminal offences. The dispute centred on whether the jury was entitled to access a transcript of the summing up during their deliberations. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal framework for deciding whether a jury could be granted access to a transcript of the summing up during their deliberations. This required an examination of the balance between the jury's right to a fair trial and the potential for prejudicing the jury by providing them with a transcript of the summing up.

The court considered the principle that a jury should be able to make its decision based on its own memory of the evidence and submissions, rather than relying on a transcript. It was noted that the availability of a transcript could lead to a miscarriage of justice by potentially influencing the jury's decision. The court also examined the circumstances under which a transcript could be provided, if at all, and the implications of such a decision for the administration of justice. The court concluded that the trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether to allow a jury access to a transcript of the summing up. However, this decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the complexity of the evidence and the potential for prejudice.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in denying the jury's request for a copy of the summing up. The trial judge had considered the potential for prejudice and the impact on the jury's decision-making process. The court upheld the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the appeal. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge be upheld.

Orders