R v Georgiadis [No 2] - [2001] TASSC 48

[2001] TASSC 48

CITATION: R v Georgiadis [No 2] [2001] TASSC 48

PARTIES: R

v
GEORGIADIS, John
THEODOSIS, Julie
BELBIN, John
LAMONT, Andrew Wayne
KELLY, Paul Edward
BOSTOCK, John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  237/1999

251/1999

DELIVERED ON:  27 April 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  27 April 2001

JUDGMENT OF: Underwood J

Edited edition of reasons for judgment delivered orally

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Juries - Striking and empanelling - Challenges - Challenge for cause - Non disclosure of jurors' occupations not a sufficient cause for challenge.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [761]

Jury - The jury in criminal proceedings - Challenges - Challenge for cause - Non disclosure of jurors' occupations not a sufficient cause for challenge.

Aust Dig Jury [29]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Crown:  D G Coates and H Virs
           Accused (Georgiadis and Theodosis):    A J Glynn
           Accused (Belbin):  R A Browne
           Accused (Lamont):  W M Hodgman QC
           Accused (Kelly):  G D Wendler QC
           Accused (Bostock):  D J Gunson

Solicitors:
           Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused (Georgiadis and Theodosis):    H Drakos and Company
           Accused (Belbin):  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Accused (Lamont):  Milton & Meyer
           Accused (Kelly):  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Accused (Bostock):  Gunson Pickard & Hann

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 48
Number of Paragraphs: 22

Serial No 47/2001
File Nos 237/1999
251/1999

THE QUEEN v JOHN GEORGIADIS, JULIE THEODOSIS,
JOHN BELBIN, ANDREW WAYNE LAMONT,
PAUL EDWARD KELLY, JOHN BOSTOCK (NO 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J
(DELIVERED ORALLY) 27 April 2001

A question has arisen with respect to the copy of the jury panel supplied to counsel for the accused persons pursuant to the provisions of the Jury Act 1899 ("the Act"), s30. Although the panel shows the names of the jurors, it does not show their occupations. Counsel have requested that I enquire of each juror in order to ascertain their occupation. The object of the request is to ascertain whether any juror has an occupation in, or connected with the Fishing Industry to enable counsel for the accused persons to better consider whether his client should or should not exercise the right of peremptory challenge.

The Criminal Code, s361, provides that upon a plea, other than guilty, or one that goes to the jurisdiction of the Court, the issue thereby raised shall be tried by a jury.

The Act, s39 provides that all criminal issues joined in the Supreme Court shall be tried "by a jury consisting of 12 persons qualified as jurors according to this Act".

The Act, s4, provides in a general way, that every person who is less than 65 years of age and who is enrolled on the "State roll is qualified to serve as a juror and liable to serve".

Sections 6 - 7C inclusive, deal with exceptions to that general qualification for jury service. Section 8 defines a "jury district" and ss9 and 27 - 32 inclusive, prescribe the mechanism for providing a jury to try criminal 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 Georgiadis [No 2]

Details

AGLC: R v Georgiadis [No 2] [2001] TASSC 48
Case: [2001] TASSC 48
Decision Date: 27 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was called upon to determine whether the failure to disclose jurors' occupations on the jury panel supplied to counsel for the accused in a criminal trial was a sufficient cause for challenging the poll. The case involved six accused individuals, namely John Georgiadis, Julie Theodosis, John Belbin, Andrew Wayne Lamont, Paul Edward Kelly, and John Bostock. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the non-disclosure of jurors' occupations on the jury panel constituted a lawful basis for a challenge to the poll. The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, specifically the Jury Act 1899 and the Criminal Code, to determine whether such a challenge was permissible.

The court held that there was no statutory requirement to disclose jurors' occupations on the jury panel. Although the jury list from which the panel is selected includes this information, the panel itself only needs to show the names of the summoned jurors. The court further reasoned that the mere possibility that a juror might be engaged in or connected to the fishing industry was not a sufficient cause for challenging the poll. The court emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that a juror's occupation would inherently lead to partiality or bias. The court concluded that without specific evidence or material suggesting that an accused would not receive an impartial trial, it could not entertain a challenge based solely on the non-disclosure of jurors' occupations.

Given the extensive time and public expense involved in the trial, the court opted for a pragmatic approach. It decided to have court staff inquire of each juror if they were willing to disclose their occupation, with those occupations then being included on the jury panel and provided to each counsel. This approach aimed to balance the need for transparency and the practicalities of conducting a lengthy and complex trial.

Orders