R v Turnbull (No 1) - [2016] NSWSC 189

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 189
Hearing dates: 18 December 2015
Date of orders: 18 December 2015
Decision date: 10 March 2016
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
The trial of the Accused is to proceed at the Supreme Court in Sydney in April 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – appropriate venue for trial – alleged offence of murder in rural NSW – whether trial should proceed in district in which offence occurred – s. 30 Criminal Procedure Act 1989 – need for a fair trial for Crown and Accused – Accused charged with murder of environmental officer who has prosecuted him for breach of native vegetation laws – evidence of strong community feelings concerning native vegetation laws in local district – issues of expediency – evidence of difficulty empanelling a jury in district in which offence occurred – consideration of factors relevant to venue – venue for trial to be Sydney
Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986
District Court Act 1973
Evidence Act 1995
Jury Act 1977
Native Vegetation Act 2003
District Court Rules
Practice Note SC CL2 Supreme Court Common Law Division - Criminal Proceedings
Cases Cited: Lemon v Attorney General (1932) 50 WN (NSW) 19
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; 227 A Crim R 217
R v Cattell (1968) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 391
R v Dorrington [1969] 1 NSWR 381
R v Holden (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 444
R v Iaria and Panozzo [2004] VSC 96; 9 VR 425
R v Leitch [1998] 1 NZLR 420
R v Vandergulik [2008] VSC 17
R v Vjestica [2008] VSCA 47; 182 A Crim R 350
Texts Cited: Blackmore and Hosking, Criminal Law (NSW), Thomson Reuters
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ian Robert Turnbull (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J McLennan SC (Crown)
Mr T Alexis SC; Ms JL Roy (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Cole & Butler (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/223920
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: On 4 December 2015, the Accused, Ian Robert Turnbull, was arraigned in this Court upon an indictment containing two counts:

that on 29 July 2014, at Moree in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Glendon Turner;

that on 29 July 2014, at Moree in the State of New South Wales, he did, without consent, detain Robert Strange with the intention of obtaining an advantage, namely, the killing of Glendon Turner.

A plea of not guilty was entered on the murder count, with the Accused not being arraigned on the second count at the request of the parties.
Thereafter, for the purpose of fixing a trial date, a discussion ensued as to the appropriate venue for the trial. Mr Alexis SC, for the Accused, submitted that a trial was appropriate at Moree or, alternatively, Dubbo or Armidale. The Crown submitted that the trial should proceed in Sydney.
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 Turnbull (No 1) 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: [2016] NSWSC 189
Decision Date: 10 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Turnbull (No 1) involved the Crown prosecuting the accused on a charge of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The alleged victim, an environmental officer, had previously prosecuted the accused for breaches of native vegetation laws. The trial was initially set to take place in the district where the offence occurred, but the accused sought to have it moved to a different location. The court was required to determine whether the trial should proceed in the district in which the offence occurred, or whether it should be moved to a different location.

The legal issues that the court needed to consider included the need for a fair trial for both the Crown and the accused. The court needed to balance the interests of the accused in receiving a fair trial with the interests of the community in having the trial take place in the district where the offence occurred. The court also needed to consider the difficulty of empanelling a jury in the district where the offence occurred, as well as any other relevant factors.

The court ultimately decided that the trial should not proceed in the district where the offence occurred, due to the strong community feelings concerning the native vegetation laws in that area. The court noted that the accused had been previously prosecuted by the deceased, and that this may have created a bias in the community against the accused. The court also noted that there was evidence of difficulty empanelling a jury in the district where the offence occurred. After considering all of the relevant factors, the court decided that the venue for the trial should be Sydney.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant factors, including the need for a fair trial, the interests of the community, and the difficulty of empanelling a jury in the district where the offence occurred. The court ultimately decided that the best interests of justice would be served by moving the trial to Sydney. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case, and it provides useful guidance for future cases involving the venue for criminal trials.

Orders