R v Quintana (No. 2) - [2020] NSWSC 22

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Quintana (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 22
Hearing dates: 28 January 2020
Date of orders: 30 January 2020
Decision date: 30 January 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The application for trial by judge alone is refused.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for trial by judge alone – issues of self-defence – trial issues involve partial defence of substantial impairment – whether in the interests of justice to make order for judge alone trial – application refused

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Belghar (2012) 217 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 86
R v Gittany [2013] NSWSC 1503
R v Haydar (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 131
R v Simmons; R v Moore (No. 4) (2015) 249 A Crim R 120; [2015] NSWSC 259
R v Stanley [2013] NSWCCA 124
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517; [2005] HCA 4
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460; [2002] HCA 9

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Rey Quintana (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Evers (Applicant)
D Daleo (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Oxford Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/00067200
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This is an application by the accused, Rey Quintana, for his trial to be heard by a Judge alone pursuant to s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The prosecutor in these proceedings does not consent to the accused being tried by a Judge alone. Pursuant to s 132(4), the order can be made if I consider it in the interests of justice to do so.

Background to the proceedings

The accused stands charged with the murder of Thomas Halatoa, (also known as Thomas Booth), on 18 February 2018. The Crown case, put briefly, is that the accused stabbed the deceased with the intention of causing him grievous bodily harm in the context of the deceased, Nadine Tairi and Tekawau Opai attending his unit in Tregear, smoking ice together but then the deceased and Mr Opai assaulting and robbing him.
The accused has been diagnosed with long term treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but there is no fitness to plead issue. He was committed for trial on 14 March 2019. On arraignment on 3 May 2019 before Fullerton J, he pleaded not guilty to murder. Fullerton J allocated a trial date of 3 February 2020 with a 3 week estimate. That date was confirmed at a further directions hearing before Fullerton J on 6 September 2019.
At trial the accused will raise self-defence as well as the partial defence of substantial impairment. It is uncontroversial that each of those defences raise questions of the application of community standards as a critical component.
The trial is listed to proceed before a jury in Sydney on 3 February 2020 with a three week estimate.

The…

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 Quintana (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Quintana (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 22
Case: [2020] NSWSC 22
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Quintana (No. 2), the defendant, Quintana, applied for a trial by judge alone, citing issues related to self-defence and partial defence of substantial impairment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues that arose required the court to determine whether it was in the interests of justice to allow a trial by judge alone, considering the complexity of the trial issues.

The court was required to weigh the potential benefits of a judge alone trial against the complexity of the defence arguments, particularly regarding the partial defence of substantial impairment. The application for a judge alone trial was assessed in light of the potential impact on the fairness and efficiency of the trial process. The court considered the need to ensure that the defendant's rights to a fair trial were not compromised while also balancing the interests of justice and the administration of the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ultimately decided that it was not in the interests of justice to order a trial by judge alone. The court found that the issues of self-defence and partial defence of substantial impairment were complex and required the input of a jury to ensure a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence. The decision was based on the need to maintain the integrity of the trial process and to ensure that the defendant's right to a fair trial was upheld. Consequently, the application for a judge alone trial was refused.

Orders