R v Sica - [2011] QSC 261

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sica [2011] QSC 261

PARTIES:

R
v
SICA, Massimo
(applicant)

FILE NO:

SC No 84 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2011

JUDGE:

Chief Justice

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – GENERALLY – where applicant charged with three counts of murder – where applicant seeks no jury order under s 615 Criminal Code (Qld) – where the trial was likely to be lengthy and potentially complex – where there was circumstantial evidence – where the case had attracted substantial pre-trial publicity – where an decision in the case had earlier been given by the Court of Appeal and was available on the Court’s webpage – whether a no jury order should be made

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 615

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 34

Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414
R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592
Western Australia v Martinez (2006) 150 A Crim R 380

COUNSEL:

S Di Carlo for the applicant
M R Byrne SC, with B G Campbell, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant has been charged with three counts of murder. The trial has been set down to commence on 30 January 2012. The applicant seeks an order under s 615 of the Criminal Code that he be tried by a Judge sitting without a jury.

Section 615 provides:

“615 Making a no jury order
(1)The court may make a no jury order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.
(2)However, if the prosecutor applies for the no jury order, the court may only make the no jury order if the accused person consents to it.
(3)If the accused person is not represented by a lawyer, the court must be satisfied that the accused person properly understands the nature of the application.
(4)Without limiting subsection (1), (2) or (3), the court may make a no jury order if it considers that any of the following apply—
(a)the trial, because of its complexity or length or both, is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to a jury;
(b)there is a real possibility that acts that may constitute an offence under section 119B would be committed in relation to a member of a jury;
(c)there has been significant pre-trial publicity that may affect jury deliberations.

(5) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may refuse to make a no jury order if it considers the trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards including, for example, an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness.”

The primary submission advanced by Mr Di Carlo, who appeared for the applicant, was that…

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 Sica

Details

AGLC: R v Sica [2011] QSC 261
Case: [2011] QSC 261
Decision Date: 26 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sica involved the applicant who was charged with three counts of murder. The applicant sought a no jury order under section 615 of the Criminal Code (Qld), arguing that the trial should proceed without a jury. This request came in light of the anticipated length and complexity of the trial, the presence of circumstantial evidence, and the substantial pre-trial publicity surrounding the case. The trial had already been the subject of a decision by the Court of Appeal, which was available on the Court’s webpage.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial should proceed with a jury or without one. The court considered several factors in making its decision, including the nature of the evidence, the complexity of the case, and the potential impact of pre-trial publicity on the fairness of the trial. The court examined the circumstances under which a no jury order could be made and assessed whether they were satisfied in this case. It weighed the potential advantages of a judge-alone trial against the right to a jury trial, which is constitutionally protected.

The court ultimately decided that a no jury order should not be made. It found that while the trial was likely to be lengthy and complex, and the evidence was largely circumstantial, these factors alone did not justify dispensing with a jury. The court also considered the substantial pre-trial publicity but determined that it did not irreversibly taint the potential jury pool. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which was available to the public, did not influence the court’s decision on the no jury order. The court concluded that the right to a jury trial was paramount and should not be overridden absent compelling circumstances.

The final order was that the application for a no jury order was refused. The trial proceeded with a jury, ensuring that the applicant's constitutional right to be tried by his peers was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Sica [2011] QSC 261
PARTIES:	R v SICA, Massimo (applicant)
FILE NO:	SC No 84 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Pre-Trial Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2011
JUDGE:	Chief Justice
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY – GENERALLY – where applicant charged with three counts of murder – where applicant seeks no jury order under s 615 Criminal Code (Qld) – where the trial was likely to be lengthy and potentially complex – where there was circumstantial evidence – where the case had attracted substantial pre-trial publicity – where an decision in the case had earlier been given by the Court of Appeal and was available on the Court’s webpage – whether a no jury order should be made Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 615 Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 34 Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207 Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414 R v Fardon [2010] QCA 317 R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 Western Australia v Martinez (2006) 150 A Crim R 380
COUNSEL:	S Di Carlo for the applicant M R Byrne SC, with B G Campbell, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent