R v Jamie Schofield (No 3)
[2013] ACTSC 249
•21 November 2013
R V JAMIE SCHOFIELD (NO 3)
[2013] ACTSC 249 (21 November 2013)
CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – trial by judge alone – sufficiency of evidence at the close of case for prosecution to make out a case for the accused to answer – whether a Prasad direction directing the acquittal of the accused should be made – direction not made
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
R v Schofield (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 248
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 63 of 2013
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 21 November 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 63 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
V
JAMIE SCHOFIELD
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 21 November 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
A Prasad direction not be given to His Honour
In this trial the prosecution has closed its case against the accused, Jamie Schofield, who is charged with four offences, two of which are alternatives to the other two.
Mr Schofield, through his counsel Mr A Hopkins, made a submission that there was no case to answer in respect of the two more serious counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In respect of one count, the prosecution, represented by Mr A Williamson, very properly conceded that it must be accepted, and I entered a verdict of acquittal on that charge.
In respect of the other charge, I adjourned briefly and, after deliberating, found that there was no case to answer in respect of that count also: R v Schofield (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 248.
The two alternative counts of common assault remain.
Mr Hopkins invited me to give myself a direction that I could acquit Mr Schofield without the trial proceeding. This is known as a Prasad direction, the name coming from the decision of the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court in R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161. In that case King CJ said:
It is, of course, open to the jury at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution to inform the judge that the evidence which they have heard is insufficient to justify a conviction and to bring in a verdict of not guilty without hearing more. It is within the discretion of the judge to inform the jury of this right, and if he [or she] decides to do so he [or she] usually tells them at the close of the case for the prosecution that they may [exercise the right] then or at any later stage of the proceedings.
In order for me to exercise my discretion as requested I would have to be satisfied that the evidence against Mr Schofield is such that a jury ought to be instructed that it could, if it wishes, return a verdict of not guilty in respect of him, without hearing further evidence.
I have had the opportunity of reviewing the evidence against Mr Schofield.
I am satisfied that this is not a proper case in which to give a Prasad direction and I decline to do so.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.
Associate:
Date: 13 December 2013
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Williamson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Hopkins
Solicitor for the Respondent: Darryl Perkins Solicitors
Date of hearing: 20-1 November 2013
Date of judgment: 21 November 2013
2
0