R v Turnbull (No. 6) - [2016] NSWSC 706

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 6) [2016] NSWSC 706
Hearing dates: 15 April 2016
Decision date: 15 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Recommendation made to Department of Corrective Services that Accused be transported to and from court by more direct route

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial - 81-year old housed in custody - housed in Long Bay Hospital Wing - circuitous and protracted transport of Accused to and from court by Correctional authorities - concern that transport arrangements may impact adversely on fair trial of Accused - strong recommendation made that Accused be transported to and from court by more direct route
Legislation Cited: ---
Cases Cited: ---
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ian Robert Turnbull (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr PE Barrett (Crown)
Mr T Alexis SC; Ms C O’Neill (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Cole & Butler (Accused)

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

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The trial of the Accused, Ian Robert Turnbull, is to commence before a jury next Monday, 18 April 2016. It will proceed for some weeks.
The Accused is 81 years old. There are a number of health issues which affect the Accused, understandably, because of the circumstances in which he finds himself and given his age. The Accused is presently detained in the Long Bay Hospital Wing. I would expect that he will remain there for the duration of a trial.
Senior counsel for the Accused has informed the Court that the timetable which has applied for the purpose of bringing the Accused to Court, and then back to Long Bay, is a lengthy and onerous one. He is woken at 4.00 am for the purpose of being transported with other persons to various courts by 10.00 am. There is no complaint about that aspect, which may be unavoidable.
The difficulty lies at the end of the day, when present experience in the course of the pretrial hearing has been that the Accused is taken from Court after 4.00 pm, with the Corrective Services transport taking him via the Downing Centre and then Silverwater, ending up at the Long Bay Hospital Wing at about 10.00 pm. At that time he is provided with a meal.
The Court is well aware of the demands on the Correctional authorities with respect to the management of Correctional Centres and transport of persons between Correctional Centres and Courts.
However, the primary concerns which I have are not only that the Accused is in a fit state on the days that he comes to Court, but that if there be any problem with respect to his health, this could impact adversely upon the administration of justice in the conduct of the trial. This is to be trial by jury. I want to minimise the prospect of there being any interruption of a jury trial because of practical matters, of which this…

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. 6) 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 706
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Turnbull (No. 6) involved an elderly accused, aged 81, housed in custody within the Long Bay Hospital Wing. The defendant faced a trial for murder. The court was confronted with issues surrounding the logistical arrangements for transporting the accused to and from the court, which were perceived as circuitous and prolonged. The court considered whether these transport arrangements might adversely affect the fairness of the trial.

The legal issues before the court required determining if the current transport methods were conducive to ensuring the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court examined the impact of the prolonged and indirect transportation on the defendant's ability to participate effectively in the trial process. This included considerations of the defendant's health, the potential for stress and disorientation caused by the transport, and whether these factors might compromise the defendant's right to a fair hearing.

The court concluded that the transport arrangements, which involved circuitous and protracted journeys, had the potential to impact adversely on the fairness of the trial. It was noted that these logistical issues could hinder the defendant's ability to engage fully in the trial proceedings. The court recommended that a more direct route for transporting the defendant be adopted to mitigate any negative impacts on the fairness of the trial.

As a result of the court's findings, it was ordered that the correctional authorities should transport the accused to and from court by a more direct route to ensure the fairness of the trial. This ruling was aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the prolonged and indirect transportation methods, thereby safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Orders