Redman v R

The case of Redman v R involved an appeal against the decision of a trial judge to deny a request for a trial by judge alone. The applicant was charged with sexual intercourse with a person under 10 years without consent. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that a jury was better suited to assess the credibility of the parties involved and whether there were means available to avoid the prejudice to which the applicant pointed. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles set out in relevant case law and whether the decision was in the interests of justice.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in assuming that a jury was a superior tribunal of fact for assessing credibility. The court held that there was no presumption in favour of a jury trial and that the decision should be based on what is in the interests of justice. The court also noted that there is an important distinction between prejudicial material proposed to be relied on by the Crown and prejudicial material proposed to be introduced by an accused. The court held that an accused person should be able to defend themselves by all forensically available means and should not be forced to choose between the risk of unfair prejudice and censoring their defence.

In conclusion, the court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the relative abilities of judge or jury to determine facts. The court held that the decision to deny the application for a trial by judge alone was not in the interests of justice. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.