DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hanslow [2014] QDC 262
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
vRANCE NEIL HANSLOW
FILE NO/S:
Rockhampton 232/2014
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
18 November 2014
DELIVERED AT:
Emerald
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
Crown submissions filed 6 November 2014
Defence submissions filed 10 November 2014JUDGE:
Smith DCJA
ORDER:
Indictment 32 of 2014 is transferred to the Bundaberg District Court
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – CHANGE OF VENUE
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Q)
R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd R 208
R v Walters [2007] QCA 140
COUNSEL:
Mr J Phillips for the Crown
Mr J Ahlstrand for the DefenceSOLICITORS:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the applicant
Legal Aid Office Queensland for the defence
Introduction
This is an application by the Crown brought under s 590AA of the Criminal Code for an application to transfer the indictment to Bundaberg.
The application is opposed by the defendant.
The Law
Section 63 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Q) provides:
“Change of venue
(1) where an accused person is committed for trial to the District Court in a place other than the district in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, a Supreme Court Judge or a District Court Judge may order that the trial be held in that district and they make all such orders for the remand and custody of the accused person, and for the enlargement of the accused person’s bail, as may be necessary.”
In R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd. R. 208 it was held that a trial should ordinarily proceed in the district in which the offence charged is alleged to have been committed. The factors relevant include:
(a) the cost, expense and inconvenience involved in a change of venue;
(b) disruption to court schedules and the waste of court resources;
(c) delay;
(d) ensuring a fair trial is and is seen to be had;
(e) the system of administration of justice in Queensland establishes court districts and enables the Crown to select the district in which criminal proceedings will be commenced. (Also see R v Walters [2007] QCA 140).
Submissions
In this case the accused has been charged with 13 counts. A summary of the locations is as follows:
Count Location Court Jurisdiction 1 Blackbutt and elsewhere Maryborough 2 Blackbutt Maryborough 3 and 4 Townsville Townsville 5 and 7 Tiaro Maryborough 6 Tiaro and elsewhere Maryborough 8 to 13 Childers Bundaberg
The Crown submits as follows:
(a) The majority of offending occurred in the Bundaberg district although the charges were committed for trial in the District Court at Rockhampton.
(b) Only one of the Crown witnesses is based in Rockhampton namely the arresting officer. The others are either interstate or near Bundaberg, Maryborough and the Beenleigh/Logan areas. Only one witness is to be pre-recorded.
(c) The court sits in Bundaberg with relative frequency and there is no significant delay or expense to be incurred…
Continue reading R v Hanslow
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hanslow [2014] QDC 262
- Case
- [2014] QDC 262
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues revolved around the criteria established by the common law for a change of venue. The court had to consider whether there was a real danger that Hanslow could not receive a fair trial in Rockhampton due to the difficulty in finding impartial jurors, as claimed. The court examined the extent of publicity in the region, the potential for community bias, and the measures that could be taken to mitigate any perceived unfairness.
The Supreme Court found that the extensive and potentially prejudicial publicity surrounding the case in Rockhampton did create a real danger that Hanslow could not receive a fair trial there. The court noted the significant media coverage, the inflammatory nature of some reports, and the potential for community bias. These factors collectively undermined the impartiality of the jury pool. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the Bundaberg District Court, where it was believed that an impartial jury could be more readily assembled.
The orders of the court were that indictment 32 of 2014, which related to Hanslow, be transferred from the Rockhampton District Court to the Bundaberg District Court. This decision ensured that Hanslow would face his trial in a location where he could expect a fair and unbiased judicial process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Indictment 32 of 2014 is transferred to the Bundaberg District Court
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.