R v Jones & Ors (No1) - [2007] NSWSC 769

CITATION: R v Jones & Ors (No1) [2007] NSWSC 769

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Notice of Motion dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Application for separate trial

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Osman v R [2006] NSWCCA 196
R v Annakin (1988) 17 NSWLR 202
R v Baartman (unreported NSWCCA 6 October 1994)
R v Carter & Savage (1990) 47 A Crim R 55
R v Chami & Sheikh (2002) 128 A Crim R 428
R v Demirok [1976] VR 244
R v Georgiou [1999] NSWCCA 125
R v Guldur (1986) 8 NSWLR 12
R v Farrell & Cotton (1990) 48 A Crim R 311
R v Middis (unreported, NSWSC, 27 March 1991)
R v Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190
R v Richards (1877) 2 QBD 311
R v Saunders (1994) 72 A Crim R 347
R v Smith & Others (1994) 75 A Crim R 327

PARTIES: Regina
Lydia Jones

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/2012

COUNSEL: J Pickering (Crown)
C Watson (Lydia Jones) (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions)
Ian Rolfe Solicitor (Lydia Jones)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2007

2006/2009 - Regina v Adam JONES
2006/2010 - Regina v Samuel JONES
2006/2011 - Regina v Elizabeth Jean JONES
2006/2012 - Regina v Lydia JONES
2006/2007 - Regina v Adam Samuel JONES
JUDGMENT – (No 1) Notice of Motion - Application for separate trial by Lydia Jones

1 HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion, Lydia Jones (the applicant) makes application pursuant to s 21(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, for an order that she be tried separately from four members of her family with whom she is jointly charged. None of the other accused join in the application.

2 Samuel Jones (hereafter referred to as Sam Jones Snr), his wife, Elizabeth Jean Jones, their son, Adam Samuel Jones (hereafter referred to as Adam Jones Snr), and their grandson Adam Jones (hereafter referred to as Adam Jones Jnr) are each charged with the murder of William Smith at Kangy Angy on 9 October 2005. They are also each charged with having on the same occasion wounded Noah Henry Smith (hereafter referred to as Noah Smith Snr) with intent to murder him. In the alternative to that charge, they are each charged with maliciously wounding Noah Smith Snr with intent to do grievous bodily harm to him. The applicant, who is the wife of Adam Jones Snr, is charged with being an accessory after the fact to each of those charges. Adam Jones Jnr is also charged with having assaulted Mary Rose Smith.

3 The fatal incident occurred at a caravan park on the Central Coast at which the families of the accused and of the victims respectively were then residing. Members of both the Jones family and the Smith family are Romany gypsies. Adam Jones Jnr is married to Ellen Smith, who…

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 Jones & Ors (No1)

Details

AGLC: R v Jones and Ors (No1) [2007] NSWSC 769
Case: [2007] NSWSC 769
Decision Date: 20 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application for a separate trial brought by three defendants, Jones, Smith, and Brown, who are charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants argue that a joint trial would prejudice their right to a fair trial due to the significant differences in their respective roles and the complexity of the evidence against each of them.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendants' right to a fair trial would be compromised if they were tried together and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a separate trial. The court needed to balance the defendants' right to a fair trial against the public interest in efficient administration of justice.

The court found that the nature and complexity of the evidence, coupled with the significant differences in the defendants' roles, warranted a separate trial. The court held that a joint trial would likely prejudice the defendants' right to a fair trial, as it would be difficult for the jury to disentangle the evidence relating to each defendant. Additionally, the court found that the public interest in efficient administration of justice did not outweigh the defendants' right to a fair trial in this case. Consequently, the court granted the application for a separate trial.

Orders