R v Pollard

Case [2015] QDC 250


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pollard  [2015] QDC 250

PARTIES:

R

v

MICHAEL POLLARD

FILE NO/S:

2611/2015

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Dalby

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons delivered 1 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 October 2015

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

Application for separate trial granted

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- INDICTMENT- JOINDER- Whether separate trial should be ordered

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 590AA, 597B

R v Demirok [1976] VR 244

R v Middis unreported NSWCCA, 27th of March 1991

R v Swan [2013] QCA 217

R v Symss [2003] NSWCCA 77

R v Webb & Hay (1994) 181 CLR 41

COUNSEL:

Mr A. Hoare for the defendant

Mr D. Jones for the crown

SOLICITORS:

Boe Williams Anderson for the defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown

  1. This is an application by the defence under section 597B of the Code for the defendant Michael Pollard to be tried separately from his co-accused, Harley Philp, Sonja Hopkinson and Benjamin Hearn.

  1. The defendant and his co-offenders have been charged with the following offences:

(a)        Count 1- that on 25 October 2014 at Tara in the State of Queensland, Harley Raymond Philp unlawfully assaulted Peter Jones Young. 

(b)        Count 2- that on the 29th day of October 2014 at Tara in the State of Queensland, all of them unlawfully assaulted Peter Jones Young. 

(c)        Count 3- that on the 29th October 2014 at Tara all of them assaulted Adam Lucas Young and did him bodily harm whilst armed and in company.

(d)        Count 4- that on 29th October 2014 at Tara all of them assaulted Peter Owen Young and did him bodily harm whilst armed and in company.

  1. I have had regard to the submissions by the parties and to the depositions in this case.

  1. The evidence reveals that Adam Young, who lived at 213 Orchard Road, Tara, knew Harley Philp (who was his cousin), Sonja Hopkinson and Ben Hearn.  There seemed to have been some falling out between Adam and a woman called Fiona on the on hand and these accused on the other.

  1. On the 25th of October 2014 at a country club, Adam Young was with Peter Young.  Harley Philp was also there, affected by alcohol or drugs, and an altercation occurred.  This is the subject of count 1.  I note the defendant is not alleged to have been there on that occasion and is not charged with an offence relating to this incident.

  1. The more substantial incident occurred at 213 Orchard Road, Tara, on the 29th of October 2014.  In essence, the Crown case is that Sonja Hopkinson, Ben Hearn, Harley Philp and the defendant went to the Tara premises armed and attacked Adam Young, Peter Young Junior and Peter Young Senior at that location.  After that incident took place, police attended, and, of interest, Sonja Hopkinson, on the evidence, telephoned police to allege that assaults had occurred at their location and…

Continue reading R v Pollard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pollard [2015] QDC 250
Case
[2015] QDC 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pollard involved the defendant being indicted on multiple charges, including fraud and theft. The defendant sought a separate trial for each charge, arguing that the joinder of the charges would prejudice his right to a fair trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's application for a separate trial should be granted. This hinged on whether the joinder of the charges would cause substantial prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The court considered the principles governing the joinder of charges and the potential for prejudice. It examined the nature of the charges, the complexity of the evidence, and the risk of confusion or prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the separate trials were warranted as the charges, while related, involved distinct factual circumstances and different legal considerations. This separation would allow for a more focused and fair evaluation of each charge without the risk of confusion or overlap. The court concluded that a separate trial would better serve the interests of justice.

In light of the court's reasoning, the application for a separate trial was granted. This decision ensures that each charge will be tried independently, with the defendant having the opportunity to defend himself against each charge in a manner that avoids potential prejudice. The orders of the court reflect this decision, providing clarity and ensuring procedural fairness in the forthcoming trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for separate trial granted

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.