R v Patel (No 3) - [2013] QSC 1

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Patel (No 3) [2013] QSC 001

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:

18 January 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 January 2013

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDERS:

rder that the following provisions of the particulars filed on 11 January 2013 be struck out:O1.

paras 3a and 3b;(a)

paras 4a and 4b;(b)

paras 5a and 5b;(c)

paras 7a and 7b;(d)

para 8;(e)

para 9; and(f)

so much of paras 10-12 as refers to the foregoing paragraphs.(g)

Further order that the Crown provide further particulars of the liver disease and the history of heart disease referred to in para 5c(iv) of the particulars.In the latter case that may be done by delivering typescripts of the relevant history, identifying their source. 2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant faces a retrial on a charge of manslaughter – application for an order that a count on the indictment be permanently stayed or alternatively that the further amended particulars of that count be struck out – whether the amended particulars fail to particularise the charge

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 288

Patel v The Queen[2012] HCA 29, cited
R v Patel [2012] QSC 419, cited
R v Patel [2012] QSC 420, followed

COUNSEL:

P E Smith and K Hillard for the applicant
M J Byrne SC and D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Raniga Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

FRYBERG J: The earlier history of this matter is well known.[1] By count 9 the accused is charged with the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris. The Crown relies on s 288 of the Criminal Code and has delivered particulars accordingly. On 20 December the third set of particulars so delivered was struck out and it was ordered that the Crown file and serve proper particulars on or before 11 January 2013.[2] A fresh set of particulars was filed and served[3] and it is those particulars which form the foundation for the 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.

The major challenge in the argument as presented relates to particulars of causation. As to the relevant law, I venture to repeat what I wrote on the previous occasion this question was before the court:

“[29] … That issue should be discussed in its statutory context. That context was summarised by the High Court:
‘11.Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Patel (No 3) [2013] QSC 001
Case: [2013] QSC 1
Decision Date: 18 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Patel (No 3) involved the applicant who faced a retrial on a charge of manslaughter. The applicant sought an order that a specific count on the indictment be permanently stayed or, in the alternative, that the further amended particulars of that count be struck out. The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the amended particulars failed to adequately particularise the charge against the applicant. This question required the court to examine the specificity and sufficiency of the details provided in the particulars in relation to the charge of manslaughter.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the particulars provided in the indictment, focusing on the alleged deficiencies. The court found that certain paragraphs in the particulars did not sufficiently detail the nature of the charge against the applicant, rendering them inadequate for the purposes of the trial. Specifically, the court identified several paragraphs that were too vague or incomplete to form a proper basis for the charge. Consequently, the court ordered the striking out of specific paragraphs, as well as any references to those paragraphs within other parts of the particulars. Additionally, the court directed the Crown to provide more detailed information regarding the liver disease and the history of heart disease mentioned in one of the paragraphs. This additional information could be provided in the form of typescripts from the relevant medical records, clearly identifying their sources.

The court's decision was grounded in the necessity for clarity and precision in legal charges, ensuring that the accused has a fair opportunity to prepare a defence. By striking out the inadequate paragraphs and requesting further particulars, the court aimed to balance the rights of the accused with the Crown's duty to prosecute effectively. The final orders of the court were precise and targeted, ensuring that the retrial could proceed on a solid foundation of clear and sufficient particulars.

Orders

Orders of the court

rder that the following provisions of the particulars filed on 11 January 2013 be struck out:O1.

paras 3a and 3b;(a)

paras 4a and 4b;(b)

paras 5a and 5b;(c)

paras 7a and 7b;(d)

para 8;(e)

para 9; and(f)

so much of paras 10-12 as refers to the foregoing paragraphs.(g)

Further order that the Crown provide further particulars of the liver disease and the history of heart disease referred to in para 5c(iv) of the particulars.In the latter case that may be done by delivering typescripts of the relevant history, identifying their source. 2.

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 Patel (No 3) [2013] QSC 001
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:	18 January 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 January 2013
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDERS:	rder that the following provisions of the particulars filed on 11 January 2013 be struck out:O1. paras 3a and 3b;(a) paras 4a and 4b;(b) paras 5a and 5b;(c) paras 7a and 7b;(d) para 8;(e) para 9; and(f) so much of paras 10-12 as refers to the foregoing paragraphs.(g) Further order that the Crown provide further particulars of the liver disease and the history of heart disease referred to in para 5c(iv) of the particulars.In the latter case that may be done by delivering typescripts of the relevant history, identifying their source. 2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant faces a retrial on a charge of manslaughter – application for an order that a count on the indictment be permanently stayed or alternatively that the further amended particulars of that count be struck out – whether the amended particulars fail to particularise the charge Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 288 Patel v The Queen[2012] HCA 29, cited R v Patel [2012] QSC 419, cited R v Patel [2012] QSC 420, followed
COUNSEL:	P E Smith and K Hillard for the applicant M J Byrne SC and D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Raniga Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent