R v Cranston (No 26) - [2023] NSWSC 139

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 26) [2023] NSWSC 139
Hearing dates: 14, 15, 21, 22 February 2023
Date of orders: 23 February 2023
Decision date: 24 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) That individual Juror 02942175 is discharged pursuant to s 53B(a) and 53B(d) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
(2) Pursuant to s 53C(1)(b) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), the trial is to continue with the remaining eleven jurors.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — where pregnant juror medically advised to cease participation in jury service – juror discharged.

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278; [2001] HCA 36
R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860
R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977
R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166
R v Cranston (No 25) [2023] NSWSC 15
Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: 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)
Kingston Fox Lawyers (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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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, and a jury of fifteen was empanelled. Since that time, I have made orders on 28 June 2022, 20 July 2022 and 30 August 2022 on each occasion discharging one individual member 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, the trial has proceeded with twelve jurors. I completed my summing up to the jury on 18 January 2023 and invited the jury to retire to consider their verdicts that morning. The jury have deliberated since that time, albeit with some substantial breaks (see R v Cranston (No 25) [2023] NSWSC 15).
On 25 August 2022, Juror 02942175 (known as Juror K) informed the Court that she was unwell and would be unable to attend on that day. She provided the Sheriff with a medical certificate from her treating doctor which was anonymised by the Sheriff and provided to me. That medical certificate, which I marked MFI 43, stated that 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 26)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 26) [2023] NSWSC 139
Case: [2023] NSWSC 139
Decision Date: 24 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 26), the respondent, a pregnant juror, was discharged from jury service following medical advice that her pregnancy necessitated a cessation of participation. The case was heard in a court where the Crown sought to challenge the decision to discharge the juror, arguing that it prejudiced the fairness of the trial. The central issue for the court was whether the discharge of the juror was permissible under the applicable legal principles and whether it had the potential to prejudice the fairness of the trial.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the discharge of jurors, particularly focusing on the circumstances in which a juror may be excused from service due to medical reasons. The court found that the statutory framework allowed for the discharge of a juror when medically advised, and the medical advice in this case was clear and compelling. The court further considered whether the discharge of the juror prejudiced the fairness of the trial and found that there was no evidence to suggest that the replacement juror would have any bias or that the discharge would lead to any prejudice. The court held that the discharge of the juror was lawful and did not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

As a result, the court dismissed the Crown's appeal and upheld the decision to discharge the juror. The court found that the statutory provisions and case law supported the decision to discharge the juror based on medical advice, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the fairness of the trial. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework and the principle of ensuring that jurors are able to serve without undue hardship or risk to their health. The final orders of the court were that the discharge of the juror was lawful and did not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

Orders