R v Turnbull (No. 8) - [2016] NSWSC 714

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 8) [2016] NSWSC 714
Hearing dates: 22 April 2016
Date of orders: 22 April 2016
Decision date: 22 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Further strong recommendation that Accused be transported by most direct route to and from court. Recommendation to be communicated personally to the Commissioner for Corrective Services, the Medical Officer in charge of the Long Bay Hospital Wing and the Officer-in-Charge of the Transport Section of the Department of Corrective Services.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial - 81-year old Accused in custody - housed in Long Bay Hospital Wing - Accused being conveyed to court by circuitous and protracted route - recommendation made to Correctional authorities that Accused be transported to court by more direct route - recommendation not acted upon - concern that transport arrangements will interfere with administration of justice - strong recommendation made to be communicated personally to the Commissioner for Corrective Services and others
Legislation Cited: ---
Cases Cited: R v Turnbull (No. 6) [2016] NSWSC 706
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: Last Friday, 15 April 2016, I made a strong recommendation with respect to the transport of the Accused, Ian Robert Turnbull, to and from Court for the purpose of his trial.
The Accused is 81 years old, and he is held in the Long Bay Hospital Wing. I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, but it should be read together with what I am saying now. My judgment, R v Turnbull (No. 6) [2016] NSWSC 706, will be attached to the present judgment.
As I stated in that judgment, I well understand the practical difficulties affecting the Department of Corrective Services and the demands upon their resources, including the transporting of prisoners. I have been informed, however, that despite the strong recommendation made a week ago, the Accused, at the completion of what was the first day of his trial yesterday, was transported from this Court to other places, not arriving at the Long Bay Hospital Wing until about 9.00 pm.
If that pattern was continued daily during this trial, it is not fanciful to consider that the Accused will suffer some adverse health outcome which will endanger the progress of this trial.
My principal concern is the proper administration of justice. The Department of Corrective Services, in all its forms and in all its functions, plays a fundamental part in the administration of justice. Its role, in the present respect, is to facilitate the functioning of the criminal courts. Any step which may be taken in transporting the Accused which causes an adverse health outcome, and causes his trial to be…

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. 8) 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 714
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Turnbull, the defendant, an 81-year-old man, was being held in custody in Long Bay Correctional Centre. The dispute centred around the method of transporting the accused to the court, which was deemed unnecessarily lengthy and circuitous, raising concerns about the potential interference with the administration of justice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the prolonged and convoluted transportation of the elderly accused to court was an undue interference with the administration of justice and whether there was a duty on the part of the correctional authorities to adopt more direct and efficient transportation methods to ensure the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

The court found that the circuitous route taken for transporting the accused to court was indeed an undue interference with the administration of justice. It held that the Correctional authorities had a duty to adopt more direct and efficient transportation methods to prevent any potential prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial. The court underscored the importance of ensuring that the accused's access to the court was not unduly delayed or obstructed, particularly given the age and health of the accused. The court made a strong recommendation to be communicated personally to the Commissioner for Corrective Services and others, urging them to adopt more direct transportation routes for future court appearances.

The court ordered that a recommendation be communicated personally to the Commissioner for Corrective Services and other relevant authorities, urging them to adopt more direct transportation routes for the accused in future court appearances. This was to ensure that the administration of justice was not unduly interfered with and that the accused's right to a fair trial was protected.

Orders