R v Cranston (No 27) - [2023] NSWSC 200

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 27) [2023] NSWSC 200
Hearing dates: 21 and 22 February, 1, 3 and 6 March 2023
Date of orders: 6 March 2023
Decision date: 09 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) That individual Juror 02964979 is discharged pursuant to s 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 ten jurors
Jury direction at [33] given.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — where juror must attend training period as precondition to offer of employment — juror discharged.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial of five accused on two counts each — Direction to jury that separate verdicts may be given.

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BG v R (2012) 221 A Crim R 215
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278; [2001] HCA 36
Lee v R; Tang v R [2015] NSWCCA 157
R (Cth) v Petroulias (No. 33) [2007] NSWSC 1447
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 26) [2023] NSWSC 139
R v Medich (No 10) [2017] NSWSC 32
R v Ousley (1996) 87 A Crim R 326

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Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.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

The discharge of individual Juror 02964979 (known as Juror P) on 6 March 2023; and

A direction to the jury given on 6 March 2023.

Discharge of Juror P

This 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, 30 August 2022 and 23 February 2023, 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; R v Cranston (No 16) [2022] NSWSC 1166; and R v Cranston (No 26) [2023] NSWSC 139.
I completed my summing up to the jury on 18 January 2023 and…

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 27)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 27) [2023] NSWSC 200
Case: [2023] NSWSC 200
Decision Date: 09 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cranston (No 27), the respondents, who were on trial for various criminal offences, sought the discharge of a juror who was conditionally employed as a juror, contingent upon completing a training period. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondents argued that the juror's conditional employment rendered them ineligible to serve on the jury, and as such, the juror should be discharged. The legal issues revolved around the eligibility of a juror who had not yet completed the required training to serve on a jury and the implications of discharging a juror mid-trial.

The court considered the statutory provisions regarding juror eligibility and the precedents concerning the discharge of jurors. It was determined that while the juror's employment was conditional, the condition was not a disqualifying factor for serving on the jury. The court held that the statutory provisions did not preclude a conditionally employed juror from serving, and thus, the juror could continue to participate in the trial. The court also addressed the trial of five accused on two counts each, providing direction to the jury that separate verdicts might be given for each count and for each accused.

The court ruled that the conditional employment of the juror did not invalidate their participation in the trial. The jury was directed to consider separate verdicts for each of the accused and for each of the counts. The respondents' application for the discharge of the juror was dismissed. The trial proceeded with the original jury composition, and the court provided clear instructions to the jury regarding the separate verdicts.

Orders