R v D'Arcy - [2000] QSC 425

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Indictment No 97 of 2000
[2000] QSC 425

R
v
D’ARCY

Douglas J 17/10/2000

This is an application under s 47 of the Jury Act 1995 to put in place the special procedure for challenge for cause in certain cases. The trial of this indictment is to be heard commencing Monday of next week for approximately a month. The accused is charged with a variety of sexual offences involving minors, both male and female. Three of the counts are counts of rape. They occurred a very long time ago. Something in the order of 35 years.

The applicant was for many years, some 22, a Member of Parliament of the State of Queensland. During that time and particularly during the time when the allegations in relation to the matters the subject of the trial arose, he received certain adverse publicity which is outlined in the affidavit of Benedict John Power sworn on 30 October this year.
In paragraph 13 of that affidavit, Mr Power swears as to those matters and he says these matters give rise in his view, to likely prejudicial feelings against the accused which will be likely to lead to impartiality on the part of an individual juror or jurors and sets it out as follows:

(a)with regard to Mr D’Arcy’s resignation from his position as a Member for Woodridge on 9 January 2000 the media published the fact that he received the sum of $660,000 in superannuation by virtue of the years he spent as a Member of Parliament and the media publicised stringent criticism of the fact that he should receive such a large amount of money significantly funded by Queensland taxpayers at a time when he still faced serious charges of sexual criminal misconduct allegedly committed at a time prior to his becoming a Member of Parliament. Indeed the media publicised various views that his superannuation payment should not have been made to him by the trustees of the Parliamentary Superannuation Fund, but rather the payout figure should have been frozen until the outcome of the criminal charges against him so that in the event that he should be found guilty of any of the charges against him then the monies contributed by the Queensland Taxpayers to his superannuation could be permanently withheld from him;
(b)with regard to Mr D’Arcy’s position as a Member of Parliament over many years, the media referred to him as the “Phantom” in that he lived in a luxury mansion at Raby Bay outside his electorate of Woodridge and that he failed to look after his constituents in his electorate and failed to represent them properly in the Parliament to the extent that hardly any of the constituents of the electorate of Woodridge knew that he was their Member, nor could recognise him if they saw him. The media stated and or implied that he hardly spent any time in the electorate and he was frequently absent from the House when Parliament was sitting; 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 D'Arcy

Details

AGLC: R v D'Arcy [2000] QSC 425
Case: [2000] QSC 425
Decision Date: 17 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard an application from the accused, D'Arcy, who was charged with various sexual offences involving minors. The case was set to commence the following week and was expected to last about a month. D'Arcy had served as a Member of Parliament for the State of Queensland for 22 years and faced allegations dating back approximately 35 years. The application was made under section 47 of the Jury Act 1995, seeking to implement a special procedure for challenge for cause in certain cases, considering the significant adverse publicity D'Arcy received during his tenure as a Member of Parliament.

The court needed to determine whether there were special reasons for inquiry that would warrant questioning potential jurors about the likely prejudicial feelings they might hold against D'Arcy due to the media coverage. This inquiry was particularly focused on the media criticism D'Arcy faced, such as the publicity regarding his superannuation payout, his alleged neglect of his electorate, and his refusal to resign from Parliament despite calls from the Premier. The court had to balance the need for a fair trial with the potential impact of pre-trial publicity on the jurors' impartiality.

The court examined the nature and extent of the media criticism and concluded that, while some of the criticism directly related to the offences for which D'Arcy was being tried, much of it pertained to his conduct as a Member of Parliament and his involvement in the "Net-bet affair". The court noted that such criticism was typical of what parliamentarians often faced and generally diminished over time. Given that the trial judge intended to instruct the jury to focus solely on the evidence presented in court, the court found that asking the jurors about the media criticism would only serve to remind them of the prejudicial information, potentially complicating their ability to remain impartial. Consequently, the court declined the application and ordered that no media reports be made of the application, evidence, submissions, or reasons until the trial was completed.

Orders