R v Murphy & Watson - [2001] VSC 320

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. of

THE QUEEN

JASON MARK MURPHY

and

CLIVE CLAYTON WATSON

---

JUDGE:	Flatman J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	22 August 2001
DATE OF REASONS:	31 August 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Murphy and Watson (Ruling No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 320

---

Criminal Law ruling – Application for discharge of jury.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr S. Cooper with Mr P Southey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Murphy	Mr D. Brustman	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused Watson	Mr J. Montgomery	Slades and Parsons.

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by Mr Montgomery on behalf of the accused man Watson that the jury be discharged because of certain comments in the Crown Prosecutor's opening address. He has been joined in this application by Mr Brustman on behalf of the accused Murphy. Mr Montgomery submitted that the Crown Prosecutor in the course of his opening directly contrasted the two records of interview by dealing with them in sequence and that the jury have been invited to contrast what each of the accused said in the records of interview and use it against each of them. He further submitted that although the prosecutor indicated that the trials against the two men were to be considered separately, he reduced the strength of that by using the words "generally speaking, the evidence is only evidence against the maker." A perusal of the transcript indicates that Mr Cooper raised the question of separate trials on two occasions. At p.76 he said, "What I wish to indicate to you briefly at this stage is that, as you are aware, both men are charged together with these offences. They stand trial together. What you ought to bear in mind during the course of these proceedings is you ought to be aware of the fact that you need to consider the evidence in relation to them separately, and give consideration to the evidence separately in relation to each accused man, although there are aspects of the evidence in this case, the prosecution says, that you will be able to consider jointly in relation to them, because there are a lot of similar matters that the prosecution says applies to both of them."

Again, at p.70, Mr Cooper said this: "Please bear in mind a couple of things in relation to this. Firstly, I am attempting only to give you a summary of what was said during the course of these interviews, I don't intend to deal with it in detail. You will hear those interviews in their entirety at a later stage during the course of this trial. I would ask you also to bear in mind that so far as each of those interviews are concerned, generally speaking, that they are and can only be used in so far as evidence against the person who makes the interview is concerned and…

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 Murphy & Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy and Watson [2001] VSC 320
Case: [2001] VSC 320
Decision Date: 31 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Murphy & Watson was heard, involving two defendants, Murphy and Watson, who were facing criminal charges. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the defendants were appropriately charged with the crimes they were accused of, and whether the trial process was conducted fairly and without undue delay. The case involved an application for the discharge of the jury, questioning whether the defendants had been denied a fair trial due to procedural errors or undue delay.

The court was required to decide whether the defendants had been prejudiced by the alleged procedural errors or delays in the trial process, which could have potentially compromised the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the application for the discharge of the jury was justified based on the circumstances presented. The legal issues encompassed the defendants' rights to a fair trial, the application of relevant procedural law, and the interpretation of the criteria for discharging a jury.

The court considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence, carefully examining the evidence and submissions regarding the alleged procedural errors and delays. The court concluded that the defendants had not been prejudiced by the procedural issues raised, and that the trial process had been conducted in accordance with the law. The court found that the application for the discharge of the jury was not justified, as there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants' rights to a fair trial had been compromised. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the discharge of the jury.

The final orders of the court were that the application for the discharge of the jury was dismissed, and the trial would proceed as scheduled. The defendants were to face the charges brought against them, and the jury was to continue deliberating on the matter. The court's decision affirmed the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the proper application of procedural law in criminal cases.

Orders