SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
vNEIL ANDREW PENTLAND
FILE NO/S:
Indictment No 532 of 2019
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
HEARING DATE:
1 April 2020
ORDERS MADE:
REASONS:
DELIVERED AT:
1 April 2020
27 April 2020
Brisbane
JUDGE:
Burns J
ORDERS:
The orders of the court pursuant to s 615 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) are that:
1. Neil Andrew Pentland be tried by a judge sitting without a jury;
2. The trial remain listed to commence before Martin J on 20 July 2020.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – GENERALLY – where the accused is charged on indictment with murder – where the trial was listed to proceed before a judge and jury on a future date – where the identity of the trial judge is known – where jury trials were subsequently suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic – where the accused made application for a no jury order pursuant to s 614 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether it is in the interests of justice that a no jury order be made – whether there are special reasons for making a no jury order
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 (Cth), s 80
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 24, s 119B, s 590AA, s 614, s 615, s 615A, s 615D
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 7, r 42A
Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld), Part 6Arthurs v State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 182, cited
Coates v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 142, cited
R v BCM [2014] QSC 321, cited
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCA 86, cited
R v Chardon [2015] QDC 59, cited
R v Chardon [2018] QSCPR 17, cited
R v Clough [2009] 1 Qd R 197, cited
R v Coman [2020] QSC 60, cited
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317, cited
R v Hanna & McAllum [2019] QDCPR 50, followed R v Kissier [2012] 1 Qd R 353, followed
R v Madden [2015] QDC 340, cited
R v McNeil [2015] NSWSC 357, referred
R v Patel [2012] QSC 419, discussed
R v Perry (1993) 29 NSWLR 589, cited
R v Prisk & Harris [2009] QSC 315, followed
R v Sica [2011] QSC 261, cited
R v Sica [2014] 2 Qd R 168, followed
R v WHA [2013] QDC 338, citedCOUNSEL:
S Holt SC and B Dighton for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent
The applicant, Neil Andrew Pentland, is charged on indictment with one count of murder.
On 12 March 2020, his trial was listed to commence before Martin J and a jury on 20 July 2020 for an estimated duration of five weeks.
Four days later, as…
Continue reading R v Pentland
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78
- Case
- [2020] QSC 78
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the implications of conducting a trial without a jury in the context of the ongoing pandemic. It evaluated the rights of the accused, the public interest, and the necessity to ensure the administration of justice during this extraordinary period. The court noted that the suspension of jury trials was a response to the pandemic's impact on public health and safety. The accused's right to a fair trial was balanced against the need to mitigate the risk of virus transmission and protect the health of all participants in the trial process. The court determined that granting the no jury order was in the interests of justice and that there were special reasons to do so, given the extraordinary circumstances.
As a result, the court issued a no jury order, permitting Pentland's trial to proceed before a judge alone. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in adapting legal processes to address unforeseen challenges while upholding the principles of justice. The final orders were made on 1 April 2020 and 27 April 2020 in Brisbane, ensuring that the trial could proceed in a manner that balanced the rights of the accused with public health considerations.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 April 2020
27 April 2020
Brisbane
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.