R v We (No.17) - [2020] NSWSC 342

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WE (No.17) [2020] NSWSC 342
Hearing dates: 1 and 2 April 2020
Date of orders: 02 April 2020
Decision date: 02 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [12]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Juries – Self-represented accused – Request by jury for copies of final addresses of the Crown and the accused – Whether request should be met – Where the accused made inflammatory and scandalous submissions to the jury in the course of his address – Where the accused made submissions unsupported by the evidence – Whether the accused’s address should be redacted before being provided to the jury
Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Parhizkar v R (2014) 88 NSWLR 647; [2014] NSWCCA 240
R v Ronald Edward Medich (No 24) [2017] NSWSC 293
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Crown
WE – Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGuire SC and B Anniwell – Crown
Accused – Self-represented
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) – Crown
Accused – Self-represented

File Number(s): 2016/305103
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

The jury in the present trial is currently in its fourth day of deliberations. They have already requested (and have been provided with) the vast majority of the transcript of the evidence which was given in the trial.
Shortly before the conclusion of proceedings yesterday I received a note from the jury in the following terms: [1]

“Transcripts of closing addresses for both parties. The Crown and accused.”
1. MFI 56.

Because of the lateness of the hour at which that request was received, I indicated to the jury that it would be considered overnight and a determination made this morning as to whether or not it should be met.
Prior to adjourning yesterday I referred both the Crown and the accused to some authorities which I considered may be helpful in determining the issue.
Upon resumption this morning, the Crown submitted that it would be appropriate to exercise my discretion in favour of providing the requested material to the jury. That position was expressed with one qualification, namely, that the transcript of the accused's address to the jury should be edited by removing those portions in which the accused had made submissions to the jury which were inflammatory, scandalous, or otherwise not covered by the evidence, and which caused me to interrupt the accused.
The accused objected to any form of editing being undertaken. He asserted that to redact portions from his address would be unfair, and would be reflective of a "double standard" being applied by the Court as between himself and the Crown. The accused complained about the fact that he had been interrupted in the course of addressing the jury, and submitted that there were no similar interruptions made in the course of the Crown's address, in circumstances where he submitted that the Crown had made a number of "unfounded assertions".
There are…

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 We (No.17)

Details

AGLC: R v WE (No.17) [2020] NSWSC 342
Case: [2020] NSWSC 342
Decision Date: 02 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v We (No. 17) involved the accused, who was self-represented in the proceedings, standing trial on criminal charges. The jury, during the deliberation process, sought copies of the final addresses delivered by both the Crown and the accused. The request arose due to the contentious nature of the final address made by the accused, which contained inflammatory and scandalous assertions unsupported by evidence. The legal issue before the court was whether the jury's request for copies of the final addresses should be granted, particularly in light of the problematic content in the accused's address. The court had to consider whether the accused's submissions warranted any redaction before providing the addresses to the jury for their deliberations.

The court examined the principles governing the provision of final addresses to the jury and weighed the competing interests of transparency in the judicial process against the potential harm caused by inflammatory content. It considered whether the jury's request should be met in the interest of ensuring a fair and informed deliberation process. The court also deliberated on whether redaction of parts of the accused's address was necessary to mitigate any prejudicial effect while maintaining the integrity of the trial. Ultimately, the court determined that the jury's request should be accommodated, subject to the redaction of certain sections of the accused's final address to prevent any undue prejudice.

The court concluded that the jury was entitled to have access to the final addresses of both parties to facilitate a thorough and informed deliberation. However, it found it appropriate to redact parts of the accused's address that were inflammatory and not supported by the evidence to avoid any potential prejudice. The decision balanced the need for transparency in judicial proceedings with the imperative to prevent unfair influence on the jury. The court issued an order providing the jury with the final addresses, with specified sections of the accused's address redacted as necessary.

Orders