R v James Patrick Jennings - [2010] NSWDC 145

CITATION: R v James Patrick Jennings [2010] NSWDC 145

HEARING DATE(S): 12/07/2010, 13/07/2010, 16/07/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 July 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Toner SC DCJ

DECISION: I dismiss the application.

CATCHWORDS: Permanent Stay Application

LEGISLATION CITED: s.79(2), s.101 or s.137 Evidence Act
s.81 Crimes Act

CASES CITED: Jago v The District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23
Murphy v R (1989) 63 ALJR 422
R v McCarthy McDonald and Isaksen NSWCCA 12 August 1994 unreported
R v Tolmie NSWCCA 7 December 1994 unreported
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
The Queen v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592
Barron v AG (1987) 10 NSWLR 215
Regina v Basha (1989) 39 ACrimR 337
Regina v Laurie Peter Helmling CCA, 11 November 1993, unreported
Regina v George Adler CCA, 11 June 1992, unreported
Regina v Anthony Richard Goldburg CCA, 23 February 1993
Regina v David Anthony McCarthy CCA, 12 August 1994, unreported
Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514
United States v Von Neumann (1986) 474 US 242
Bell v DPP [1985] AC 937
Herron v McGregor, at 252
Reg v Clarkson
Watson v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685
Carver v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 29 ACrimR 24
Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514
R v Littler (2001) 120 ACrimR 512
Longman v The Queen 1999 168 CLR 79
R v Edwards (2009) 255 ALR 399
RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133

PARTIES: R v James Patrick Jennings

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/61262

COUNSEL: Counsel for the Crown: Mr E Crespo
Counsel for the Accused: Mr D Farmer

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for the Crown: Mr A Charleston
Solictior for the Accused: Mr G Elliot

JUDGMENT

1 James Patrick Jennings seeks a permanent stay of an indictment brought against him. That indictment charges six counts of indecent assault against a male contrary to s.81 of the Crimes Act which section has now been repealed and replaced by other provisions in the Act. The offences are said to have been committed between 1 February 1060 and 31 October 2061.

2 The Crown’s case against Mr Jennings is that during those times he was an ordained priest of the Catholic Church and a teacher at St Stanislaus’ College at Bathurst. Each of the complainants were pupils at that school and each of them were boarders there. The Crown alleges that the accused assaulted each of the complainants in various circumstances but mostly at night whilst each was in bed in a dormitory at the school. The indecent assault was fondling the penis of the particular complainant.

3 It is part of the Crown case that at relevant times the accused held a position within the school which was known as the “Dean of Discipline”. A summary of the way in which the Crown proposes to demonstrate its case has been provided to me and is Exhibit C.

4 I do not propose to incorporate the whole of it into these reasons. I think it is fair to divide the Crown case up in the following ways:…

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 James Patrick Jennings

Details

AGLC: R v James Patrick Jennings [2010] NSWDC 145
Case: [2010] NSWDC 145
Decision Date: 16 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v James Patrick Jennings, the applicant sought a permanent stay of proceedings on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant, Jennings, alleged that prosecutorial misconduct had occurred during his earlier trial, which led to an unfair trial and an unsound conviction. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that there was no prosecutorial misconduct and that any perceived issues were either misconceived or irrelevant to the fairness of the trial.

The central legal issues the court needed to determine were whether there had been prosecutorial misconduct, and if so, whether such misconduct was sufficiently serious to warrant a stay of proceedings. The court had to examine the conduct of the prosecutor, the context in which the alleged misconduct occurred, and its impact on the fairness of the trial. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether any alleged misconduct warranted a permanent stay or if alternative remedies were available.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that while there were instances of prosecutorial error, these did not rise to the level of misconduct. The court held that the trial remained fair and just, and that the applicant's rights were not prejudiced to a degree that would justify a permanent stay. The court also noted that any errors were not deliberate and did not undermine the overall integrity of the trial process. Consequently, the application for a permanent stay of proceedings was dismissed. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, the nature of the alleged misconduct, and the principles governing prosecutorial conduct and trial fairness.

Orders

Orders of the court

I dismiss the application.

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.

CITATION:	R v James Patrick Jennings [2010] NSWDC 145
HEARING DATE(S):	12/07/2010, 13/07/2010, 16/07/2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 July 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Toner SC DCJ
DECISION:	I dismiss the application.
CATCHWORDS:	Permanent Stay Application
LEGISLATION CITED:	s.79(2), s.101 or s.137 Evidence Act s.81 Crimes Act
CASES CITED:	Jago v The District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23 Murphy v R (1989) 63 ALJR 422 R v McCarthy McDonald and Isaksen NSWCCA 12 August 1994 unreported R v Tolmie NSWCCA 7 December 1994 unreported Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 The Queen v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 Barron v AG (1987) 10 NSWLR 215 Regina v Basha (1989) 39 ACrimR 337 Regina v Laurie Peter Helmling CCA, 11 November 1993, unreported Regina v George Adler CCA, 11 June 1992, unreported Regina v Anthony Richard Goldburg CCA, 23 February 1993 Regina v David Anthony McCarthy CCA, 12 August 1994, unreported Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 United States v Von Neumann (1986) 474 US 242 Bell v DPP [1985] AC 937 Herron v McGregor, at 252 Reg v Clarkson Watson v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685 Carver v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 29 ACrimR 24 Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 R v Littler (2001) 120 ACrimR 512 Longman v The Queen 1999 168 CLR 79 R v Edwards (2009) 255 ALR 399 RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133
PARTIES:	R v James Patrick Jennings
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/61262
COUNSEL:	Counsel for the Crown: Mr E Crespo Counsel for the Accused: Mr D Farmer
SOLICITORS:	Solicitor for the Crown: Mr A Charleston Solictior for the Accused: Mr G Elliot