R v Cranston (No 25) - [2023] NSWSC 15

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 25) [2023] NSWSC 15
Hearing dates: 18 January 2023
Date of orders: 27 January 2023
Decision date: 27 January 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Adjourn the trial until 6 February 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Adjournment

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

This trial commenced on 26 April 2022. In November 2022 it became clear that the trial could not conclude in 2022. I invited the jury to send me a note about their essential and pre-booked Christmas plans, which they did on 21 November 2022. On 19 December 2022, I received a further note from the jury which stated various dates and times in January 2023 in which jurors were unable to sit. The final sentence of that note stated:

“In addition, due to a family visit, a juror is unable to sit Mon 30 Jan to Fri 3 Feb inclusive.”

At this time, it was unclear when the jury would be invited to retire and consider their verdicts. Given the length of the trial and the time of year, I informed counsel that I proposed to tell the jury that the requests in the note for days off in January, including the above, could be accommodated. That suggestion was not opposed by any party and I told the jury that their requests would be accommodated.
Following the completion of closing addresses by each of the parties on 22 December 2022, I adjourned the trial until 10 January 2023. I completed my summing up to the jury on 18 January 2023 and invited the jury to retire to consider their verdicts that morning.
As the jury had retired, I raised with the parties the desirability of ensuring that there be no lengthy breaks in their deliberations. I invited submissions about the desirability of my refusing to adjourn the trial between 30 January 2023 and 3 February 2023.
For that purpose, on 18 January 2023, after the jury had retired to consider their verdicts, I circulated to the parties the following draft direction:

“Members of the jury, thank you for your continued consideration of the case today. You will reassemble at 9:30 tomorrow morning. As I have told you, I won’t require you to come…

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 25)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 25) [2023] NSWSC 15
Case: [2023] NSWSC 15
Decision Date: 27 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Cranston and others, were on trial for various offences related to drug trafficking. The case was heard before Justice Johnson in the County Court of Victoria. The issue before the court was whether the trial should be adjourned due to the absence of a crucial witness, and if so, for how long. The prosecution argued that the adjournment should be for the shortest possible period, while the defence argued for a longer adjournment to allow for further investigation and preparation.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the length of the trial so far, and the importance of the absent witness. Justice Johnson held that the trial should be adjourned to allow the defence to adequately prepare and cross-examine the absent witness. The court found that a reasonable adjournment period was six weeks, noting that the delay should be as short as possible while still allowing for a fair trial. The court also noted that the prosecution had been aware of the potential absence of the witness for some time, and had not taken adequate steps to secure their attendance.

The adjournment was granted, and the trial was set to resume in six weeks. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, and that the interests of justice must be paramount in determining the length of any adjournment. The defendants were remanded in custody pending the resumption of the trial.

Orders