R v Long - [2001] QSC 445

[2001] QSC 445

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

de JERSEY CJ

THE QUEEN

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…

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 Long

Details

AGLC: R v Long [2001] QSC 445
Case: [2001] QSC 445
Decision Date: 30 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Long, the defendant, Robert Paul Long, faced charges related to an alleged crime that occurred in Childers. The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the case, with the initial indictment presented at Bundaberg, the nearest Supreme Court centre to the location of the alleged offence. The court had to decide on the appropriate venue for the trial, with Long's defence seeking a change from Bundaberg to Brisbane. The central Judge had previously declined the application for a change of venue, leading to an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal and a pending application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial should be held in Bundaberg or Brisbane, given the extensive delay in the proceedings and the significant logistical challenges involved, including the number of witnesses and the duration of the trial. The court also had to consider the implications of section 557(9) of the Criminal Code, which allows a person charged with an offence to be tried in any jurisdiction with their consent, and how this provision should be interpreted in light of the Justices Act.

The court concluded that the circumstances justified moving the trial to Brisbane to ensure timely resolution and to prevent further delays that could affect the fairness of the trial. The Chief Justice interpreted section 557(9) of the Criminal Code to be subject to the same constraints as the Justices Act, meaning it should only be used when there would be undue delay in proceeding in the local district of the alleged crime. The court emphasised the importance of bringing the case to finality as soon as possible, while also recognising the need for a fair trial. Consequently, the trial was scheduled to commence in Brisbane on 28 January 2002, with six weeks reserved for its duration, and Justice Dutney assigned to conduct the trial to maintain its focus on the central district.

The court's decision aimed to balance the need for a fair trial with the urgency of concluding the case promptly. By moving the trial to Brisbane, the court sought to avoid further delays and ensure that any conviction, if it occurred, would be as secure as possible. The trial was set to commence on 28 January 2002, with Justice Dutney overseeing the proceedings to maintain the central district's focus.

Orders