R v Long

[2001] QSC 445

[2001] QSC 445

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

de JERSEY CJ

THE QUEEN

v.

ROBERT PAUL LONG

BRISBANE

..DATE 30/11/2001

REASONS

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  On 9 April 2001 an indictment was presented in the Supreme Court at Bundaberg.  The Supreme Court at Bundaberg is the nearest Supreme Court centre to the place of the alleged crimes at Childers.  It was right that the indictment be presented in Bundaberg.  It is imperative that an indictment be presented in the district where the alleged offence occurs.  A party may then, if manifest convenience or other relevant considerations dictate, apply for a change of venue.  In this case, the learned central Judge heard an application for change of venue, and on 10 April 2001 declined to move the trial from Bundaberg to Brisbane.  Unfortunately, subsequent events have delayed any final resolution of the matter.  On 10 August 2001 an appeal to the Court of Appeal failed on a jurisdictional ground.  The defence has applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court.  The application is yet to be heard, 5 March 2002 being a proposed hearing date.

I am conscious that if a trial in Bundaberg results in conviction it may be that any subsequent appeal would actively revive the issue of the fairness of the trial.  Were an appeal at that stage to succeed the prospect of a retrial in Brisbane of these mammoth proportions would be very concerning.  The trial will involve a host of witnesses, I am told approximately 160 including up to 40 from overseas, and will consume a lengthy period of Court time:  approximately six weeks is the current estimate.

Time is moving on.  The fire in Childers occurred on about 23 June 2000.  The accused was committed for trial by order of the Magistrates Court on 15 January 2001.  It is critically important, in the interests of the accused, the families of the alleged victims and the public generally, that the trial commence as soon as possible and proceed in such a way as will render any ultimate conviction, should that eventuate, as secure as may be.  The unsuccessful pursuit of the appeal process, following the central Judge's refusal of the application for change of venue, has inevitably delayed overall resolution.

I have reached the view that these circumstances combine to justify resort now to section 557(9) of the Criminal Code. That subsection provides that a person charged with an offence may with his consent be tried in any jurisdiction. The provision was introduced into the Criminal Code by amendment in 1956 by means of the Criminal Code and Justices Act Amendment Act. That amending Act concurrently amended provisions of the Justices Act in relation to the venue for trials and sentences. The amendment provisions of the Justices Act expressly confine the circumstances in which a person may be committed for trial or sentence to a district, other than the district of the alleged offence, to situations where undue delay would otherwise result. In those days, sittings of the Courts at regional centres could not be convened with the ready facility which now ensures that the Courts sit regularly, as necessary, to avoid delay to those facing the criminal process. A reading of the initiation and second reading speeches and debates in relation to that amending Act of 1956 makes it perfectly plain that the amendment to the Criminal Code provision was intended to be approached similarly, that is, recourse to centres other than those within the district of the alleged offence should be available only when a trial within that local district, or an accused's being sentenced within that local district, would, because of the timing of local Court sittings, leading to unacceptable delay.

My view is that section 557(9) of the Criminal Code must be read down so that its application accords with the limits expressed in sections 108 and 113 of the Justices Act. An indictment must not be presented in the Supreme Court at Brisbane, in reliance on section 557(9) of the Code, in any situation where proceeding in the local district of the alleged crime will not cause undue delay.

Recognising the decentralised nature of the State it is fundamentally important that a trial ordinarily proceed in the district of the alleged offence.  Allowing this matter now to proceed here reflects an assessment of the critical need to bring the case to finality, and secure finality, as soon as possible, and makes realistic allowance for the delay which has attended the progress of the case to this point. 

The trial will proceed in Brisbane commencing on the first day of the 2002 Court year, that is 28 January 2002.  Six weeks will be reserved for the trial.  Significantly, the trial will be conducted by Justice Dutney, the central Judge.  I have particularly asked Justice Dutney to conduct the trial in an endeavour to enhance the official presentation of the case as being one primarily concerning the central district, not this metropolis.  For the duration of the trial the central Judge's commitments in Rockhampton, Mackay and other central centres will, as necessary, be discharged by visiting Judges.