Legal Research
Cases
R v Patel

R v Patel

Case [2012] QSC 419 27 November 2012

Burdensome Proceedings

Pre-trial Publicity

Objective Community Standards

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Patel [2012] QSC 419

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

JAYANT MUKUNDRAY PATEL

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 387 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2012

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant faces a retrial on the charge of the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris – where the applicant seeks a no jury order – where there has been a significant amount of publicity prejudicial to the applicant both before the original trial and since – where the identity of the trial judge is known to the parties when the application is decided – whether special reasons justify the making of a no jury order – whether it is in the interests of justice to make a no jury order – whether the trial because of its complexity is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to the jury – whether there has been significant pre-trial publicity that may affect jury deliberations – whether there exists a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards including an issue of reasonableness, negligence or dangerousness

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), ss 604, 614, 615

Jury Act1995 (Qld), s 47

Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20, referred

Patel v R [2012] HCA 29, referred
R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, cited
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86, referred
R v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371, cited
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317, referred
R v Ferguson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 186 A Crim R 483, referred
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, cited
R v Kissier [2011] QCA 223, referred
R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315, referred
TVM v Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183, cited

COUNSEL:

K C Fleming QC for the applicant

P J Davis SC with D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Raniga Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

Dr Jayant Patel faces a retrial on a charge of the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris. He was found guilty of that charge as well as of two further counts of manslaughter and one of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm by a jury on 29 June 2010. Those convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal but quashed by the High Court of Australia on 24 August 2012 because of the reception of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence at the trial at a stage when the prosecution case was not clearly focussed.[1]
[1]Patel v R [2012] HCA 29

There has been a significant amount of publicity prejudicial to Dr Patel both before the original trial and since. It reached its nadir when…

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 Patel

Details

AGLC: R v Patel [2012] QSC 419
Case: [2012] QSC 419
Decision Date: 27 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Patel, seeks a no jury order in relation to his retrial on the charge of manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris. The application was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether special reasons justified a no jury order. The case involved a significant amount of pre-trial publicity prejudicial to the applicant both before the original trial and since, raising concerns about the potential impact on jury deliberations. Additionally, the trial was considered to be of considerable complexity, potentially placing an unreasonable burden on the jury. The Court was required to weigh these factors against the interests of justice to determine whether a no jury order was warranted.

The Court examined the nature of the publicity and its potential impact on the jury's ability to make an impartial decision. It also considered the complexity of the trial and the potential difficulty for a jury to understand and deliberate on the issues presented. The Court noted that while there were compelling arguments in favour of a no jury order due to the publicity and complexity, these factors alone were not sufficient to justify such an order. The Court held that the interests of justice, including the principle of open justice and the right to a trial by jury, outweighed the potential disadvantages of a jury trial in this case. Consequently, the application for a no jury order was dismissed.

In dismissing the application, the Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the jury system and the principle of open justice. It recognised the significant publicity and complexity involved but determined that these factors did not create an insurmountable obstacle to a fair trial by jury. The Court also noted that appropriate measures, such as jury vetting and careful jury selection, could mitigate the risks posed by the publicity. Ultimately, the Court concluded that a trial by jury was in the interests of justice and would not be unreasonably burdensome given the available safeguards.

The Court's decision was clear and decisive, with the application for a no jury order being dismissed outright. No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application. The applicant was left to face a retrial with a jury, with the Court confident that the trial could proceed fairly and justly despite the challenges presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Patel [2012] QSC 419

Most Recent Citation

R v Johnston [2014] QDC 174

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78
Citation 1 (Para 9)

…Qd R 168 and, at first instance, R v Sica [2011] QSC 261 (de Jersey CJ). [4][2009] QSC 315 (Martin J). [5][2009] 1 Qd R 197 (Mackenzie J). [6][2012] QSC 419 (Douglas J). [7][2014] QSC 321 (Ann Lyons J). [8][2018] QSCPR 17. [9]See, for example, R v WHA [2013] QDC 338 (Chief Judge O’Brien), R v Chardon [2015] QDC 5…
R v Chardon [2015] QDC 59
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…bears no comparison with the type of publicity which attached to the accused in cases such as R v Fardon [2011] QCA 317 and R v Patel [2012] QSC 419. The great majority of the articles identified were published 12 months or more ago. Mrs Chardon, as noted above, disappeared more than two years ago in February 201…
R v Johnston [2014] QDC 174
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…In R v Patel [2012] QSC 419 Douglas J dismissed Dr Patel’s application which was based on alleged unfair publicity and complexity.…
R v Patel (No 4) [2013] QSC 62
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…s J who, on 27 November 2012, dismissed an application by the accused for a no jury order pursuant to s 614 of the Criminal Code .[32] [32] R v Patel [2012] QSC 419.…
R v Patel (No 3) [2013] QSC 1
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…present application by the accused for orders that count 9 be quashed or proceedings on it be stayed. [1] Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29; R v Patel [2012] QSC 419. [2] R v Patel (No 2) [2012] QSC 420. [3]Annexure A to these reasons the judgment.…
R v Patel (No 2) [2012] QSC 420
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…n application by the accused for an order that he be retried by a judge sitting without a jury.[2] [1] Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29. [2] R v Patel [2012] QSC 419.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…f the reception of inadmissible and prejudicial evidence at the trial at a stage when the prosecution case was not clearly focussed.[1] [1] Patel v R [2012] HCA 29…
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…the interests of justice in a case like this depended solely upon who bore the onus of proof.[7] [6][2011] QCA 223 at [30]; cf also R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 at [95]-[96] and [118] [7]See Hidden J in R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 at [118]…
R v Kissier [2011] QCA 223
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…te situation if the question of what was in the interests of justice in a case like this depended solely upon who bore the onus of proof.[7] [6][2011] QCA 223 at [30]; cf also R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 at [95]-[96] and [118] [7]See Hidden J in R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 at [118]…
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…r use. [26](2008) 186 A Crim R 483, 487 at [9]. The accused was described as a “well known paedophile” and a “convicted child molester” [27][2010] QCA 317 at [30]. There the appellant was referred to as a “rapist”, “serial rapist”, “serial child rapist”, and “the State’s most wanted sexual predator” [28](2008) 18…
Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…llowing passage from the recent decision in Dupas v The Queen :[24] [22][2012] NSWCCA 86 at [23]-[38] [23] R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86 at [38] [24][2010] HCA 20 at [25]-[29]; (2010) 241 CLR 237 (citations omitted)…
R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…r making a no jury order. Martin J said, in that context, having referred to the phrase’s interpretation in a number of other contexts:[12] [12][2009] QSC 315 at [9]…
R v Bateman [2000] NSWSC 915
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…able standards of care. This is a classical case, therefore, where the considerations involved in s 615(5) need to be taken into account. [21]See R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8…
R v Glennon [1992] HCA 16
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…o be seen as a balance to the lack of reasons which a judge’s decision would provide.[19] I shall return to these issues later. [18]See R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, 603, 613-615 and R v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371, 374-375 at [19]-[21] [19]See TVM v State of Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183 at [32]…

Legislation Cited

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) 604, 614, 615
3 mentions
Jury Act 1995 (Qld) 47
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code and Jury and Another Act Amendment Act 2008 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Patel [2012] QSC 419
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v JAYANT MUKUNDRAY PATEL (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 387 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	27 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2012
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – CONTROL OF PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant faces a retrial on the charge of the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris – where the applicant seeks a no jury order – where there has been a significant amount of publicity prejudicial to the applicant both before the original trial and since – where the identity of the trial judge is known to the parties when the application is decided – whether special reasons justify the making of a no jury order – whether it is in the interests of justice to make a no jury order – whether the trial because of its complexity is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to the jury – whether there has been significant pre-trial publicity that may affect jury deliberations – whether there exists a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards including an issue of reasonableness, negligence or dangerousness Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), ss 604, 614, 615 Jury Act1995 (Qld), s 47 Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20, referred Patel v R [2012] HCA 29, referred R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, cited R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86, referred R v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371, cited R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317, referred R v Ferguson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2008) 186 A Crim R 483, referred R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592, cited R v Kissier [2011] QCA 223, referred R v Prisk and Harris [2009] QSC 315, referred TVM v Western Australia (2007) 180 A Crim R 183, cited
COUNSEL:	K C Fleming QC for the applicant P J Davis SC with D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Raniga Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent