R v Sq

[2021] ACTSC 27

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v SQ

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 27

Hearing Date:

3 February 2021

DecisionDate:

3 February 2021

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [3]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-trial application – application of accused to hold inspection of premises of alleged offence in presence of jury and parties – application of s 53(1) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – whether it will be easier for the jury to understand the evidence if able to see the site for themselves

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 53(1)

Parties:

The Queen ( Crown)

SQ ( Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

K Marson ( Crown)

S Whybrow ( Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Aulich Law ( Accused)

File Number:

SCC 217 of 2020

BURNS J:

1. I am satisfied that this is a case in which an inspection of the premises at which the alleged offence is said to have happened, should occur, it being accepted at the present time that the premises are in the same condition that they were in at the time of the alleged offence.

1. The premises, based upon the photographs that have been tendered by the applicant, are relatively cluttered in terms of desks and other furniture and it will be much easier, in my view, for the jury to be able to understand the evidence if they were able to see the site for themselves.  That is particularly so in circumstances where there will be a submission, as I understand it, made to the jury that it is highly unlikely that the events occurred because if they had occurred, they would have been observed by others who were present at the time in the office.

1. For that reason, I propose to make orders in accordance with order one sought in the application dated 24 December 2020 that pursuant to s 53(1) of the

   
   Evidence Act 2011

   (ACT), an inspection be held at the accused’s trial, in the presence of the jury and parties, of the premises occupied by the business [redacted] in the Australian Capital Territory.  I note that order two is no longer pursued.

I certify that the preceding three [3] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns

Associate:

Date: