R v De Rooy - [2002] WASC 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: R -v- DE ROOY [2002] WASC 1

CORAM: ANDERSON J

HEARD: 10 DECEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 4 JANUARY 2002

FILE NO/S: INS 107 of 2001

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
AND
SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Separate trials - Principles

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 585

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown: Mr D Dempster
Accused: Mr P J M Sullivan

Solicitors:

Crown: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Paul Sullivan

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barnes & Anor v The Queen [2001] WASCA 86

Case(s) also cited:

BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Collard v The Queen [2000] WASCA 417
De Jesus v The Queen (1986) 68 ALR 1
Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292
Roser v The Queen [2001] WASCA 190
Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528

ANDERSON J: The indictment in this matter is dated 10 December 2001 and it charges that:
"(1)On 13 January 2001 at Bedford SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY stole from MICHELLE CHRISTINE KISSACK with threats of actual violence $196.95 in money, the property of GILLIAN HILL trading as MOVIES 4 U BEDFORD WA.
(2)AND FURTHER THAT on 18 January 2001 at Inglewood SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY stole from BENJAMIN KJELLGREN with threats of actual violence $432.00 in money and two packets of cigarettes, the property of DAVID JOHN FROST and CHRISTINE JOHN BEVERIDGE trading as EZY PLUS INGLEWOOD.
(3)AND FURTHER THAT on 28 January 2001 at Bedford SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY stole from PAUL ANTHONY PICOT with threats of actual violence $176.00 in money, the property of GILLIAN HILL trading as MOVIES 4 U BEDFORD WA
AND THAT at the time SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife
(4)AND FURTHER THAT on 4 February 2001 at Noranda SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY stole from GIULIAN ANDREW TAVELLI with threats of actual violence $800.00 in money, the property of EMERALD LAKE PTY LTD trading as VIDEO EZY NORANDA
AND THAT at the time SHANE WILLIAM DE ROOY was in company with another."
The accused has not been arraigned on this indictment. The matter came before me on 10 December in the form of a directions hearing in which counsel for the accused made an oral application "that there should be separate indictments on these counts … ".
By this, I take the application to be a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it contains more than one charge, contrary to the first part of s 585 of the Criminal Code; and that the proviso to s 585 does not apply.
Section 585 is in the following terms:
"Except as hereinafter stated, an indictment must charge one offence only, and not 2 or more offences:
Provided that when several distinct indictable offences form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character … charges of such distinct offences may…

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 De Rooy

Details

AGLC: R v De Rooy [2002] WASC 1
Case: [2002] WASC 1
Decision Date: 4 JANUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, De Rooy, who was charged with multiple offences related to a drug trafficking operation. The dispute centred on the legality of conducting separate trials for each offence, a matter that was brought before the court for resolution. The proceedings took place in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the nation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was permissible under the principles of criminal law to conduct separate trials for each of the charges against De Rooy. The court needed to consider the implications of such a practice on the fairness and efficiency of the judicial process. The case required the court to balance the rights of the accused against the public interest in ensuring that justice is served promptly and effectively.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the established principles governing separate trials. It was noted that while separate trials can be justified in certain circumstances to avoid prejudice and ensure a fair trial, they should not be used as a means to unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice the defendant's right to a unified trial. The court found that the trials should be conducted concurrently to ensure that the defendant's rights are protected and the judicial process is not unnecessarily prolonged. The reasoning emphasised the importance of judicial economy and the rights of the accused being balanced appropriately.

The court ordered that the separate trials for each of the charges against De Rooy be consolidated into a single trial. This decision was made to ensure that the principles of fairness and efficiency in the judicial process are upheld. The court's ruling provided clarity on the circumstances under which separate trials may be conducted, reinforcing the need for a balanced approach in criminal proceedings.

Orders