R v Trawin-Hadfield - [2014] NSWSC 591

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trawin-Hadfield [2014] NSWSC 591
Hearing dates: 29 April 2014
Decision date: 29 April 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Price J
Decision:
1. Leave is granted to make the application out of time. 2. The notice of motion is dismissed.

Catchwords: Criminal law - Application for judge alone trial - Community standards
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: The Queen v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86
The Queen v Dean [2013] NSWSC 661
TWL v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 57
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Crown
Bradley Owen Trawin-Hadfield (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Leask (Crown)
Mr P Givorshner (Accused)
Solicitors:
Ms A Holloway (Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr M Blair (Blair Criminal Lawyers)

File Number(s): 2010/341642

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Bradley Owen Trawin-Hadfield, (the accused), applies for a trial by judge alone pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. As the accused's notice of motion was filed on 22 April 2014 and his trial was to commence today, the application requires the leave of the Court: s 132A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Crown does not oppose the grant of leave but opposes the application.

The accused is indicted on the charge that he on 12 October 2010 at Mount Pritchard in the State of New South Wales did unlawfully kill Wallace Ruiz-Sanchez (the deceased). This is a charge of manslaughter to which the accused pleads not guilty.

The Crown case

The case against the accused is summarised in the Crown Case Statement. The deceased was shot dead on the front step of his home at Mount Pritchard. He died as a result of a single close range gunshot wound to the head. The Crown will seek to prove the gun discharged as a result of it being employed by Samuel Lockett to bludgeon the deceased on the head during an episode of unjustifiable violence. The Crown alleges that the deceased was a victim of a protracted assault that was carried out in a concerted manner and with the advantage of the force of numbers.

It is the Crown case that the accused was one of five adult men who attacked the deceased. The Crown will allege that although the accused did not carry out the action that brought about the discharge of the shotgun to the deceased's head, the accused was a party to a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the unlawful killing of the deceased. The Crown alleges that Samuel Lockett was also a party to the joint criminal enterprise.

The case against the accused is founded upon the principles of joint criminal enterprise manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The Crown will also allege that the accused was an aider and abettor in the commission of the crime by Lockett.

Issues at trial

The accused denies he was a party to a joint criminal enterprise. He further asserts that as a result of…

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 Trawin-Hadfield

Details

AGLC: R v Trawin-Hadfield [2014] NSWSC 591
Case: [2014] NSWSC 591
Decision Date: 29 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Trawin-Hadfield, the defendant, Trawin-Hadfield, applied for a judge alone trial in relation to charges of assault. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Trawin-Hadfield's application was based on the argument that the alleged assault was of a nature that did not warrant a jury trial but was instead more appropriately heard by a judge alone, given the community standards and the seriousness of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the nature of the offence was such that it should be tried by a judge alone rather than by a jury. The court had to consider the community standards and the seriousness of the offence to determine whether it warranted a judge alone trial. The court also needed to assess whether the interests of justice required the case to be heard by a jury.

The court found that the nature of the offence, being an assault, was not inherently serious enough to warrant a judge alone trial under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The court held that the interests of justice did not necessitate a judge alone trial in this case. The court emphasised that while the community standards were a relevant factor, they were not determinative. The seriousness of the offence and the potential for a jury to understand and appropriately weigh the evidence were also important considerations. Consequently, the application for a judge alone trial was dismissed.

Orders