R v Rodney William Bradley - [2007] ACTSC 35

R v RODNEY WILLIAM BRADLEY [2007] ACTSC 35 (31 May 2007)

CRIMINAL LAW – application to quash indictment – subsequent application for verdict by direction – general principles.

Criminal Code (Cth), s 142.2(1)
Court Procedures Rules 2006, r 4752

R v Fischetti & Caggiano [2003] ACTCA 5 (31 March 2003)
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
De Gioia v Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd (1941) 42 SR (NSW) 1
Wentworth v Rogers [1984] 2 NSWLR 422
Giblin v McMullen (1869) LR 2 PC 317
Hiddle v National Fire and Marine Insurance Co of New Zealand [1896] AC 372
R v B (1992) 35 SCR 259

No. SCC 32 of 2006

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 31 May 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SCC 32 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

R

v

RODNEY WILLIAM BRADLEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  31 May 2007
Place:  Canberra

On 11 September 2006 the accused was arraigned on eleven counts, each alleging offences under s 142.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the Code”). Upon his arraignment he pleaded not guilty to all charges. The matter was then remitted to a call over list so that a trial date might be allocated.

On 13 February 2007, after the matter had been set down for trial, the accused applied for an order that the indictment be quashed. The matter first came before me on 27 February 2007 and I then directed that the accused file and serve any affidavits upon which he wished to rely in support of the application by 2 March 2007 and any written submissions by 5 March 2007. I also directed that the Crown file and serve any affidavits or written submissions in response by 9 March 2007 and granted the parties leave to approach the list clerk for an oral hearing date on 12 or 13 March should that prove necessary. No affidavits were filed pursuant to these directions but submissions on behalf of the accused were provided by email on 5 March 2007. It quickly became apparent that those submissions did not involve any challenge in the nature of a demurrer to the form of the charges. Counsel for the accused argued rather that the evidence adduced at the committal and foreshadowed in the statements subsequently supplied to the defence would not support the charges. The matter was listed for an oral hearing on 13 March 2007.

Mr Purnell SC, who appeared for the accused with Mr Hausfeld then submitted that I had power to make a pre-trial determination as to the sufficiency of foreshadowed evidence pursuant to rule 4752 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006. That rule provides as follows:

An application made in the course of a criminal proceeding must be made in writing if—

(a) the application—
(i) is made before the prosecution’s case opens or witnesses are called; and
(ii) raises any question about the admissibility of evidence, or any…

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 Rodney William Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Rodney William Bradley [2007] ACTSC 35
Case: [2007] ACTSC 35
Decision Date: 31 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rodney William Bradley was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Rodney William Bradley, faced a charge of murder and applied to quash the indictment against him. A subsequent application was made for the verdict to be directed by the court. The case involved the interpretation of legal principles concerning the quashing of an indictment and the circumstances under which a verdict by direction may be appropriate.

The legal issues before the court included whether the indictment was flawed in a manner that warranted its quashing and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to allow a verdict by direction. The court was required to consider the general principles surrounding these applications and assess the merits of the defendant's arguments in light of the evidence provided.

The court held that the indictment was not flawed and thus dismissed the application to quash it. It further determined that a verdict by direction was not appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The reasoning of the court was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal precedents. The court concluded that the application for a verdict by direction was not supported by the evidence and that a jury was necessary to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The court's decision was grounded in the need to ensure a fair trial and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

The final orders of the court were that the application to quash the indictment was dismissed, and the subsequent application for a verdict by direction was also dismissed. The case proceeded to trial with a jury to determine the defendant's guilt.

Orders