R v Cranston (No 28) - [2023] NSWSC 199

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston & Ors (No 28) [2023] NSWSC 199
Hearing dates: 7 March 2023
Date of orders: 7 March 2023
Decision date: 09 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
Orders at [3]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Bail — Detention applications post-conviction — whether special or exceptional circumstances exist

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1, Criminal Code
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
DPP v Day [2022] NSWCCA 173
DPP (NSW) v Van Gestel (2022) 405 ALR 371; [2022] NSWCCA 171
El-Hilli and Melville v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 146
Lin v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [2017] NSWSC 312
Kaya v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] VSC 420
Ngoc Tri Chau v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 37 NSWLR 639
R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
R v Hammond [2020] NSWSC 888
R v Kitson [2019] NSWSC 1109

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Crown
Adam Michael Cranston (offender)
Dev Menon (offender)
Jason Cornell Onley (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGuire SC with J Paingakulam and C Tran (Crown)
J Stratton SC with H Blake (Adam Cranston)
P Bruckner (Dev Menon)
WR Johnson (Jason Onley)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
One Group Legal (Adam Cranston)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Pure Legal (Jason Onley)

File Number(s): 2017/148697; 2017/148776; 2017/149208
Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.

JUDGMENT

On 7 March 2023, the jury found Adam Michael Cranston, Jason Cornell Onley and Dev Menon each guilty of the following offences:

Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, conspiring 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).

Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, conspiring 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 section 11.5(1) and 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).

Immediately after the verdict, the Crown brought an application under s 50(1) of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to have Mr Cranston and Mr Onley detained before their sentencing. The Crown also applied for Mr Menon’s detention, but for reasons explained below, was content for his bail to continue, with varied conditions, for a period of eight weeks.
After hearing from the parties, I made the following orders:

The Court orders in the case of Adam Michael Cranston:

Bail is refused.

Matter adjourned for directions on sentencing on 4 May 2023.

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 28)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 28) [2023] NSWSC 199
Case: [2023] NSWSC 199
Decision Date: 09 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cranston (No 28) was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central dispute involved the defendant, Cranston, who had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. Following his conviction, Cranston made an application for bail pending appeal, arguing that there were special or exceptional circumstances justifying his release. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the appeal did not present a significant arguable question of law or fact and that the appeal was unlikely to succeed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal presented special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant Cranston's release on bail. This involved assessing the strength of the appeal, the arguability of the grounds of appeal, and whether there were any other factors that might justify his release pending the appeal. The court had to balance the appellant's right to challenge the conviction and sentence against the public interest in ensuring that those convicted of crimes remain in custody unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.

The High Court held that the appeal did not present significant arguable questions of law or fact. The court found that the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that there were no special or exceptional circumstances that would warrant Cranston's release on bail. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and the need to deter crime by ensuring that those convicted remain in custody unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary. Consequently, the application for bail was dismissed, and Cranston was required to remain in detention pending the outcome of his appeal.

Orders