R v Patterson (No 3) - [2024] NSWSC 455

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Patterson (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 455
Hearing dates: 16 April 2024
Date of orders: 17 April 2024
Decision date: 17 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
The application for a discharge of the jury is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – juries – application for discharge of jury – application precipitated by recent tragic events at Bondi Junction and Wakeley – media attention – media reports linking tragic event with mental illness and references to drug use – entitlement to a fair trial – jury will be exposed to expert opinions regarding the operation of mental illness and how a forensic patient is dealt with – accused’s foreshadowed judge-alone application if jury is discharged – jury concerns – capacity to follow directions – question raised from a juror about a media article and whether permitted to show other jurors – counsel encounter with a juror – counsel in civilian clothes and without a wig – discharging the jury would be "an overly sensitive approach" – discharge would suggest a lack of trust in the jury system – no real risk established to the fairness of the trial – application refused
Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1996 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Ilievski v R; Nolan v R (No 2) [2023] NSWCCA 248
Miller v The Crown [2015] NSWCCA 206; 252 A Crim R 486
Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29
R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jason Patterson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
MP King (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/327813
Publication restriction: Nil

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

HIS HONOUR: The accused in this trial is charged with the murder of his sister. The trial commenced on Monday last week, that is 8 April 2024. The accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. That plea was not accepted and the trial proceeded on the charge of murder.
Yesterday afternoon an application was made by notice of motion brought by the accused seeking a discharge of the jury. An affidavit of the accused's solicitor Mr Rohan Harrison affirmed 16 April 2024 was read in support of the application.
The application has been precipitated by recent tragic events at Bondi Junction and Wakeley. The affidavit sets out some matters that have occurred in the trial to date and then refers to events at Bondi Junction, the stabbing at Wakeley and annexes various media articles and extracts from social media with respect to those events.
Those events, particularly the event at Bondi Junction, have received extremely widespread media attention. It is well-known that at Bondi Junction on a Saturday afternoon while people were…

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 Patterson (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 455
Case: [2024] NSWSC 455
Decision Date: 17 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Patterson (No 3) involved the defendant facing a criminal trial in a court, where the primary issue was the potential impact of recent media coverage on the fairness of the trial. The recent tragic events at Bondi Junction and Wakeley had garnered significant media attention, which included discussions about mental illness and drug use, potentially influencing the jury's perception. The defendant sought a discharge of the jury, citing concerns over the ability to receive a fair trial amidst these media influences. The court was tasked with determining whether the exposure of the jury to such external factors constituted a real risk to the fairness of the trial.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the recent media coverage and its implications regarding mental illness and drug use posed a substantial risk to the fairness of the trial. The court had to weigh the defendant's right to a fair trial against the potential for media influence on the jury. Additionally, the court considered the implications of discharging the jury, including whether such a decision would reflect a lack of trust in the jury system. The court needed to assess whether the concerns raised by the defendant's counsel about the potential for bias were substantiated and warranted a discharge of the jury.

The court found that while the media coverage had indeed discussed the tragic events and associated issues, there was no concrete evidence to suggest that the jury would be unable to follow the judge's directions or that their capacity to be impartial had been compromised. The court noted that discharging the jury would be an overly sensitive approach and might inadvertently suggest a lack of trust in the jury system. The court also considered the defendant's anticipated application for a judge-alone trial if the jury was discharged. Ultimately, the court concluded that the risk to the fairness of the trial was not real and denied the application to discharge the jury. The court maintained that the jury was capable of following the judge's directions and that discharging them would not be in the interests of justice.

The final order of the court was that the application to discharge the jury was refused. The trial proceeded with the jury intact, under the judge's direction to ensure that the jurors remained impartial and focused on the evidence presented in court. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining confidence in the jury system while also addressing the challenges posed by external influences on a trial.

Orders