R v Hanna

In the matter of R v Hanna, the appellant, a senior office bearer for a trade union, appealed against his conviction for receiving a secret commission in relation to the construction of a private dwelling. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in refusing his application for a no-jury trial. The appellant claimed that publicly available information from his examination by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption would create a forensic disadvantage, locking him into a version of events from which he could not credibly depart at trial. The appellant also argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence. The court was required to decide whether the trial judge erred in refusing the no-jury application and whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in refusing the no-jury application. The court noted that the trial was estimated to last three weeks and that the pre-trial judge had considered the protections offered by the empanelling process, directions to the jury, and the presumptions in R v Glennon. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the publication and broadcasting of his examination by the Royal Commission created a forensic disadvantage. The court held that this argument had not been addressed by the pre-trial judge, but that the appellant had not demonstrated how this disadvantage could only be cured by a no-jury order. The court found that the evidence was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed.