R v Pentland

Case [2020] QSC 78


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v

NEIL 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 6

Arthurs 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, cited

COUNSEL:

S Holt SC and B Dighton for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. The applicant, Neil Andrew Pentland, is charged on indictment with one count of murder.

  2. 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.

  3. Four days later, as…

Continue reading R v Pentland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pentland [2020] QSC 78
Case
[2020] QSC 78
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pentland involved the defendant, Pentland, charged with the offence of murder. The matter was scheduled for a trial before a judge and jury, with the trial date and identity of the trial judge already known. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury trials were suspended. In response, Pentland applied for a no jury order under section 614 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), seeking to have his trial conducted before a judge alone. The central legal issues for the court were whether it was in the interests of justice to grant such an order and whether there were special reasons to do so.

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.