R v Mitchell - [2020] QDC 89

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(respondent)

v

JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

322/19

DIVISION:

Crime

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial hearing

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2020

JUDGE:

Cash QC DCJ

ORDERS:

The applicant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – ELECTION – where applicant charged on indictment for malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three summary offences – where applicant made application for “no jury order” due to the COVID-19 pandemic – where it is unknown when jury trials will resume – where the trial outcome depends on whether or not the applicant intended to cause some grievous bodily harm – whether a “no jury order” is in the interests of justice

Criminal Code (Qld), s 614, s 615

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 32(2)(c)

Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317
R v Kissier [2012] 1 Qd R 353
R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78
R v Qaumi & Ors (No 14) [2016] NSWSC 274

TVM v State of Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183

COUNSEL:

KT Bryson for the applicant

WM Slack for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

The applicant, Joshua William Mitchell, applied for an order that he be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. The application was heard by me on 19 May 2020 at which time I ordered that the applicant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. These are my reasons for making that order.

A “no jury order”, is permitted by section 614 of the Criminal Code (Qld). The applicant faces an indictment in the following terms:

“Count 1 that on the seventh day of October, 2018 at Yandina in the State of Queensland, JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to JACOB JOHN FOLEY, unlawfully wounded JACOB JOHN FOLEY

ALTERNATIVELY

that on the seventh day of October, 2018 at Yandina in the State of Queensland, JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL unlawfully wounded JACOB JOHN FOLEY

Count 2 that on the seventh day of October, 2018 at Yandina in the State of Queensland, JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL robbed MARC JONATHAN HEATH

and JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL pretended to be armed with a dangerous instrument, namely a knife”

The applicant was arrested on 8 October 2018. He has been held on remand since then, a period of about 19 months. An indictment was presented on 29 July 2019 and the applicant was arraigned on 30 September 2019. He pled not guilty in relation to the allegation of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm but offered a plea of guilty to the alternative allegation of unlawful wounding. The plea…

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 Mitchell

Details

AGLC: R v Mitchell [2020] QDC 89
Case: [2020] QDC 89
Decision Date: 20 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mitchell, the applicant was charged with a malicious act intended to cause grievous bodily harm and three summary offences. Mitchell applied for a "no jury order," arguing that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic made it uncertain when jury trials would resume. The primary issue before the court was whether a "no jury order" was in the interests of justice given the circumstances. The outcome of the trial hinged on whether Mitchell intended to cause some grievous bodily harm, a question typically posed to a jury.

The court considered the nature of the charges and the potential impact of a delay in the trial due to the pandemic. The applicant's intention was a key factor in determining guilt, and the court acknowledged that this was a matter more suited to a jury. However, the court also recognised the practical difficulties posed by the pandemic, including the health risks and logistical challenges of conducting jury trials. Balancing these factors, the court concluded that a trial before a judge sitting without a jury was in the interests of justice, given the current circumstances.

Upon weighing the arguments, the court determined that a "no jury order" was appropriate. The applicant's right to a fair trial was not compromised, as the judge could adequately assess the applicant's intent and the relevant facts. The court noted that while the usual procedure was for a jury to decide such matters, the exceptional conditions necessitated this alternative approach. The court emphasised that this decision was specific to the current pandemic situation and did not set a precedent for future cases.

The final order was that the applicant, Mitchell, be tried by a judge sitting without a jury. This decision was made in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to ensure that justice was administered without undue delay. The court's ruling provided clarity for the trial process under extraordinary circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

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 Mitchell [2020] QDC 89
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent)
v
JOSHUA WILLIAM MITCHELL (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	322/19
DIVISION:	Crime
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial hearing
DELIVERED ON:	20 May 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2020
JUDGE:	Cash QC DCJ
ORDERS:	The applicant be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – ELECTION – where applicant charged on indictment for malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three summary offences – where applicant made application for “no jury order” due to the COVID-19 pandemic – where it is unknown when jury trials will resume – where the trial outcome depends on whether or not the applicant intended to cause some grievous bodily harm – whether a “no jury order” is in the interests of justice Criminal Code (Qld), s 614, s 615 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 32(2)(c) Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317 R v Kissier [2012] 1 Qd R 353 R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78 R v Qaumi & Ors (No 14) [2016] NSWSC 274 TVM v State of Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183
COUNSEL:	KT Bryson for the applicant WM Slack for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent