Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston (No 4)

R v Cranston (No 4)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1104 24 August 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104
Hearing dates: 7-8 July 2020; 4 August 2020
Date of orders: 24 August 2020
Decision date: 24 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
See paragraph [43]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – four co-accused – one unrepresented accused – application by represented parties for separate trial – whether separate trial should be ordered

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 29

Cases Cited:
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; [1988] HCA 39
Cranston v R [2020] NSWCCA 143
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Nader v R [2018] NSWCCA 256
R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469
R v MAK [2003] NSWSC 849
R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 965
Trotter v R [2016] NSWCCA 57
Webb v The Queen; Hay v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41; [1994] HCA 30

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Adam Cranston (Applicant)
Jason Onley (Applicant)
Dev Menon (Applicant)
Lauren Cranston (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Adam Cranston (in person)
P Bruckner (Dev Menon)
R Johnson (Jason Onley)
T D Anderson (Lauren Cranston)
R Maidment QC with R Sharp and L Robb Vujcic (Crown)
Solicitors:
Pure Legal (Jay Onley)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/148697; 2017/148185; 2017/148776; 2017/149208

Judgment

PAYNE J: On 6 December 2019, the accused Adam Cranston, Dev Menon, Jason Onley and Lauren Cranston pleaded not guilty to the following two counts in an indictment presented on that day:

“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, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Devyn Michelle Hammond, 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 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).”

On the same day, Fullerton J set down the trial to commence before me on 10 August 2020. Due to COVID-19 restrictions on the available courtrooms to conduct a jury trial of this size, that date was vacated.
On 7 February 2020, the matter first came before me for pre-trial directions. Mr Cranston’s then-representatives, who were appearing for the limited purpose of obtaining legal funding for Mr Cranston, on that day sought, and were granted, a separate directions hearing for Mr Cranston in relation to issues…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2020] NSWSC 1104
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1104
Decision Date: 24 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved four co-accused, one of whom was unrepresented, and was heard in the High Court. The represented parties applied for a separate trial, raising the issue of whether such a trial should be ordered. The application was made due to concerns about potential prejudice to the represented parties if the trial proceeded with the unrepresented accused. The unrepresented accused had chosen not to have legal representation and was deemed competent to conduct his own defence, but the represented parties argued that this choice could lead to an unfair trial for them.

The legal issues before the court were whether a separate trial should be granted to the represented parties, and if so, under what circumstances. The court considered the balance between the right to a fair trial and the right to be tried with co-accused, as well as the potential impact of the unrepresented accused's conduct on the fairness of the trial for the represented parties. The court also examined the implications of ordering a separate trial on the administration of justice and the potential for creating a precedent that could affect future cases.

The court ultimately decided that a separate trial should not be ordered. It found that while the right to a fair trial is paramount, the court must also consider the rights of all co-accused, including the unrepresented accused. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their case and defend themselves, and that ordering a separate trial could undermine these principles. The court also highlighted the potential for creating a precedent that could lead to the fragmentation of trials and an increase in the complexity and cost of legal proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a separate trial was dismissed. The case was to proceed with all four co-accused being tried together. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their case and defend themselves, and that ordering a separate trial could undermine these principles. The decision underscored the court's commitment to balancing the rights of all parties involved in criminal proceedings while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders