R v Patel (No 4) - [2013] QSC 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Patel (No 4) [2013] QSC 62

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

JAYANT MUKUNDRAY PATEL
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 387 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

4 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3-6 February 2013

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDERS:

Order that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors when the Court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process be authorised.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – STRIKING AND EMPANELLING – GENERALLY – Selection of jury – Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 47 – Questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors at the final stage of the jury selection process – Determination as to impartiality – Prejudicial pre-trial publicity

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – STRIKING AND EMPANELLING – CHALLENGES – FOR CAUSE – Procedure – Application by the accused – Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 47 – Special procedure for challenge for cause – Determination as to impartiality – Prejudicial pre-trial publicity

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 597C
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 43, s 47

Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; [1989] HCA 28, considered
Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29, considered
R v Chandler (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 322, cited
R v D’Arcy[2001] QCA 325, considered
R v D’Arcy[2003] QCA 124, considered
R v D’Arcy[2005] QCA 292, considered
R v Dowling (1848) 7 St Tr NS 381, considered
R v Ferguson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 227, considered
R v Lewis [1994] 1 Qd R 613, cited
R v Manson [1974] Qd R 191, considered
R v Mason [1981] 1 QB 881, considered
R v Patel[2012] QSC 419, considered
R v Stuart and Finch [1974] Qd R 297, considered

COUNSEL:

P Davis SC with D Meredith for the Crown
K Fleming QC with P Smith and K Hillard for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown
Raniga Lawyers for the defendant

FRYBERG J: On 3 February 2013 the accused applied to the Court for the authorisation of questioning of jurors at the final stage of jury selection for his retrial on one count of manslaughter. The application was brought pursuant to s 47 of the Jury Act 1995. There was no challenge for cause pursuant to s 43 of that Act. The application was not opposed by the Crown. After hearing the parties I ordered that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors when the Court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process be authorised and announced I would deliver my reasons later. What immediately follows are those reasons. In view of the novelty of the matter I shall supplement them with some of the subsequent history of the matter, including my reasons for the procedures adopted…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Patel (No 4) [2013] QSC 62
Case: [2013] QSC 62
Decision Date: 4 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Patel (No 4) involved the appellant, Patel, who was facing a criminal trial. The dispute centred around the selection process of the jury and the challenges for cause that were raised by the appellant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant contended that the jury selection process was flawed due to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, which might have affected the impartiality of the jurors.

The legal issues before the court were whether the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors should be authorised at the final stage of the jury selection process, and if so, what procedure should be followed. The court needed to determine if the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), section 47, provided for a special procedure for challenge for cause and if the appellant's application for such a challenge should be upheld. The court also needed to consider the impact of prejudicial pre-trial publicity on the impartiality of the jurors.

The court held that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors should be authorised when the court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process. The court found that the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), section 47, did provide for a special procedure for challenge for cause. The court further determined that the appellant's application for a challenge for cause should be considered in light of the prejudicial pre-trial publicity. However, the court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the jurors were not impartial, and thus, the appellant's challenge for cause was not upheld. The court authorised the questioning of the jurors at the final stage of the jury selection process to ensure their impartiality.

The court ordered that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors be authorised when the court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process. This order aimed to ensure that the jurors were impartial and not influenced by any prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors when the Court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process be authorised.

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 4) [2013] QSC 62
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v JAYANT MUKUNDRAY PATEL (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 387 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	4 April 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3-6 February 2013
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDERS:	Order that the questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors when the Court reaches the final stage of the jury selection process be authorised.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – STRIKING AND EMPANELLING – GENERALLY – Selection of jury – Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 47 – Questioning of persons selected to serve as jurors and reserve jurors at the final stage of the jury selection process – Determination as to impartiality – Prejudicial pre-trial publicity CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – STRIKING AND EMPANELLING – CHALLENGES – FOR CAUSE – Procedure – Application by the accused – Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 47 – Special procedure for challenge for cause – Determination as to impartiality – Prejudicial pre-trial publicity Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 597C Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 43, s 47 Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; [1989] HCA 28, considered Patel v The Queen [2012] HCA 29, considered R v Chandler (No 2) [1964] 2 QB 322, cited R v D’Arcy[2001] QCA 325, considered R v D’Arcy[2003] QCA 124, considered R v D’Arcy[2005] QCA 292, considered R v Dowling (1848) 7 St Tr NS 381, considered R v Ferguson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2008] QCA 227, considered R v Lewis [1994] 1 Qd R 613, cited R v Manson [1974] Qd R 191, considered R v Mason [1981] 1 QB 881, considered R v Patel[2012] QSC 419, considered R v Stuart and Finch [1974] Qd R 297, considered
COUNSEL:	P Davis SC with D Meredith for the Crown K Fleming QC with P Smith and K Hillard for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown Raniga Lawyers for the defendant