Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston (No 8)

R v Cranston (No 8)

Case [2021] NSWSC 9 15 January 2021

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 8) [2021] NSWSC 9
Hearing dates: 14 January 2021
Date of orders: 14 January 2021
Decision date: 15 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1)   Vacate the trial of Adam Cranston fixed to commence on 18 January 2021.
(2)   Continue bail.
(3)   Adjourn the matter of Adam Cranston (2017/148697) for mention to 9:30am on Friday 29 January 2021.
(4)   Amend the order of 8 December 2020 in the matters of Adam Cranston (2017/148697), Lauren Cranston (2017/148185), Dev Menon (2017/148776) and Jason Onley (2017/149208) to insert an order 2A: “Nothing in this order prevents publication of the contents of the Court’s judgment in R v Cranston (No 8) [2021] NSWSC 9.”

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – application to vacate trial date – where trial of four co-accused – where separate trial ordered for unrepresented accused – where evidence of forensic psychiatrists is that unrepresented accused incapable of adequately conducting his defence – where Crown consents to application to vacate trial date – order made

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 84, 90, 135, 137
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure)Act1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 10
Proceeds of Crime Act2002 (Cth)
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (Cth), s 18(5)

Cases Cited:
Cranston v R [2020] NSWCCA 143
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41
Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194
R v Cranston [2020] NSWSC 469
R v Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104
R v Cranston (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1777
R v Cranston (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1834
R v McKellar [2013] NSWSC 896
R v Sharrouf (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 1450

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Adam Cranston (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Douglas QC with P Lange (Adam Cranston)
R Maidment QC with R Sharp and L Robb Vujcic (Crown)
Solicitors:
M Ayache (Adam Cranston)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/148697
Publication restriction: See order (4).

Judgment

PAYNE JA: Consistent with the Court’s practice, this judgment will be published on but will be removed at a time closer to any trial date which is subsequently fixed (see Matthews v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 194 at [3]). To permit that to occur, I amend my non-publication orders made on 8 December 2020 in the matters of Adam Cranston (2017/148697), Lauren Cranston (2017/148185), Dev Menon (2017/148776) and Jason Onley (2017/149208) by including in each an order 2A: “Nothing in this order prevents publication of the contents of the Court’s judgment in R v Cranston (No 8) [2021] NSWSC 9.”
On 20 September 2019, in the Local Court, Adam Cranston, Lauren Cranston, Jason Onley and Dev Menon were committed for trial…

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 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 8) [2021] NSWSC 9
Case: [2021] NSWSC 9
Decision Date: 15 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 8), the respondent, who was one of four co-accused, applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales to vacate the trial date. The application arose from a criminal trial where the respondent was one of several individuals charged with serious offences. The respondent, who was unrepresented at the time of the application, sought to vacate the trial date on the basis that he was incapable of adequately conducting his defence due to a mental disorder. The application was made following evidence from forensic psychiatrists who assessed the respondent and found him unfit to participate in the trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial should proceed as scheduled or if it should be vacated due to the respondent's incapacity. The court considered whether the respondent's inability to conduct his defence, as determined by expert evidence, justified vacating the trial date. The court also needed to assess the implications of proceeding with the trial without the respondent's participation, given that three of the co-accused were represented and ready to proceed. Additionally, the Crown's consent to the application was a significant factor in the court's decision-making process.

The court determined that the respondent's incapacity, as evidenced by the forensic psychiatrists, warranted vacating the trial date. The court found that the respondent's mental health issues rendered him incapable of adequately participating in his defence, which would result in a trial that was fundamentally unfair. The Crown's consent to the application further supported the decision to vacate the trial date. Consequently, the court made an order to vacate the trial date, reflecting the necessity to address the respondent's incapacity before proceeding with the trial. The court recognised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all defendants, including those who may be mentally incapacitated.

Orders