R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 24) - [2017] NSWSC 293

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
Hearing dates: 27 March 2017
Date of orders: 27 March 2017
Decision date: 27 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [22]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Juries – Request by jury for copies of trial transcript, final addresses of both counsel and the summing up of the trial judge – Whether request should be met.
Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329
R v Qaumi (No. 66) [2016] NSWSC 1403
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54
R v Taousanis [1999] NSWSC 107
Williams v The Queen [1982] Tas R 266
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ronald Edward Medich (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G O’Rourke SC and Ms S Harris (Crown)
Mr W Terracini SC, Mr T Quilter and Ms M Curry (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions New South Wales (Crown)
Colin Daley Quinn (Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/356916
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – ex tempore (revised)

The jury in the accused's trial retired shortly before the luncheon adjournment on 24 March 2017 to commence deliberations. On the afternoon of that day I received a series of communications from the foreperson of the jury, although only one of them is material for present purposes. That communication is now MFI 109 and was in the following terms:

“The jury requests the following:
Two full transcripts;
One digital copy of full transcript;
The summing-up of the Crown, the defence and the trial judge;
List of all witnesses;
The list of exhibits.”

The note concluded with the following:

“Are the jury able to request any of the MFIs?”

The contents of the note were discussed with the Crown and senior counsel for the accused. There was no issue that two hard copies of the transcript could be provided. The Crown simply requested that some time be given to prepare it, so as to ensure that those parts of it which recorded proceedings in the jury’s absence were not included.
Senior counsel for the accused objected to the provision of a digital transcript to the jury. He submitted that in all of the circumstances, it would lend itself to a member or members of the jury using it for the purposes of searching for various words or phrases as they appeared in the transcript. He submitted that this gave rise to a danger of particular emphasis being placed upon certain words or phrases which was not warranted. Although the Crown did not object to the provision of the transcript in that form, it was explained to me that it would take some time, perhaps even a few days, for it to be prepared.
I am not persuaded that the concerns expressed by senior counsel are necessarily well-founded but in all of the circumstances, and given that the jury have two hard copies of the entire transcript, provision of it in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 24) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 293
Decision Date: 27 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction, and a second appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The case involved a complex request from the jury during their deliberations, asking for copies of the trial transcript, final addresses of counsel, and the summing up of the trial judge. The legal issues before the court were whether such a request should be granted, and what the appropriate procedure would be if it was.

The court considered whether the jury's request was permissible and, if so, what the proper response should be. The High Court noted that while juries have a right to request clarification or further information, this does not extend to asking for extensive documents or recordings from the trial. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process and preventing any potential influence on the jury's deliberations. Given the nature of the request, the court held that it should not be met, as it could compromise the impartiality of the jury and the fairness of the trial. The court also addressed the issue of what should be done if such a request were to occur again in the future. It concluded that the trial judge should inform the jury that their request cannot be granted, and that they must rely on their own memory and notes to reach a verdict.

The High Court upheld Medich's appeal against his conviction, ordering a retrial. The court's decision underscored the need for strict adherence to trial procedures to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. It also provided clear guidance to trial judges on how to handle similar requests from juries in the future. The final orders included the quashing of Medich's convictions and the ordering of a retrial, with the trial judge to be informed of the court's ruling on handling such requests from juries.

Orders