R v Simmons; R v Moore (No 4)

The case involved two defendants, Simmons and Moore, who were charged with various criminal offences. They applied for their cases to be heard by a judge alone, out of time, and sought leave to do so. The applications were heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendants' applications were made in a manner that suggested they were seeking to avoid a jury trial and whether the applications should be granted on the basis that it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The court held that while the applications were indeed out of time, and there was an appearance of judge shopping, the defendants were not engaging in judge shopping in the present case. The court found that the defendants' applications were not an unedifying spectacle and that the applications should be granted in the interests of justice. The court outlined the factors to be taken into account when considering whether an issue of intention required the application of objective community standards and whether a jury had an advantage over a judge in assessing issues of credibility. The court also discussed the role of the jury as "the lamp that shows that freedom lives" and the prejudicial nature of the evidence that the accused were required to introduce to conduct their defence. The court held that a direction to the jury was not capable of curing the prejudice caused by the evidence and that the applications should be granted to avoid "judicial wishful thinking."

The court granted the applications and ordered that the cases be heard by a judge alone. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that justice is served in a manner that upholds the principles of fairness and the rule of law. The court also noted that the decision was not intended to set a precedent for future cases but was made on the specific facts and circumstances of the present case. The final orders of the court reflected the outcome of the legal issues decided in the case and provided guidance for the proceedings that were to follow.