Regina v Brewer - [2000] NSWCCA 488

CITATION: Regina v Brewer [2000] NSWCCA 488 revised - 23/11/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60719/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Frederick Keith Brewer

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Whealy J at 29; Howie J at 30

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70032/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Bell J

COUNSEL : L. P. Gray - Crown
D. N. Stewart - Appellant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Ross Hill & Associates - Appellant

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Dorrington (1969) 1 NSWLR 381
Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60719/00
SULLY J
WHEALY J
HOWIE J
20 November 2000

REGINA v Frederick Keith BREWER
JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: This is an application brought to the Court pursuant to s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 by Mr Frederick Keith Brewer ("the applicant").
2 The relevant background facts are as follows: in January 1999 a man named Glen Reay was stabbed to death at a place called Kamarah, a small town located not far from Griffith. The killing, when it came to light, excited some local media comment. In due course, four men, of whom Mr Brewer is one, were arrested and charged with the murder of Mr Reay.
3 All four were subsequently committed for trial on that charge. The committal proceedings, too, attracted a deal of local media interest and comment. 4 Following upon the committal for trial of the four accused persons, one of them pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, and is at present awaiting sentence. 5 Mr Brewer was granted, in circumstances and for reasons which are not at present material, a separate trial. The other two of the four men originally charged pleaded not guilty; were put, accordingly, upon their trial before Bell J of this Court and a jury; and were found guilty as charged upon the verdicts of the jury. That trial, also, attracted a great deal of local media interest and comment. 6 Mr Brewer's trial is set to commence on Monday next before her Honour Bell J and a jury at Griffith. On 24 October last Mr Brewer applied to her Honour to change the venue of the trial from Griffith to Sydney. In a judgment delivered on 27 October last her Honour refused that application. It is that refusal that is the subject of the present application pursuant to s 5F. 7 Four particular grounds have been notified and argued in support of the application for leave. They are as follows:

“1. Her Honour erred in allowing an irrelevant or extraneous matter to guide or affect the exercise of her discretion in that she took into consideration the possibility that to direct a change of venue for the reason of the appellant being kept at police cells at Griffith alone might…

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 Regina v Brewer

Details

AGLC: Regina v Brewer [2000] NSWCCA 488
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 488
Decision Date: 20 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Brewer, Frederick Keith Brewer applied for leave to appeal against the refusal of his application to change the venue of his murder trial from Griffith to Sydney. The application was heard by Sully J, Whealy J and Howie J of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge, Bell J, erred in refusing Brewer's application to change the venue of his trial. The Court considered four grounds of appeal, focusing on whether Bell J had exercised her discretion appropriately in light of the evidence presented.

The Court held that Bell J had correctly exercised her discretion in refusing the application for a change of venue. The judges noted that the trial judge was in a strong position to assess the local circumstances, having already overseen committal proceedings for Brewer and his co-accused. They found no error in Bell J's consideration of the physical conditions of custody, nor in her reliance on the principle that jurors are expected to follow the judge's directions. The Court concluded that it had not been demonstrated that the trial judge's decision was unreasonable or unjust, and thus denied leave to appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the decision of Bell J, refusing Brewer's application for a change of venue. The judges agreed that the trial judge's exercise of discretion was sound, and there was no basis to interfere with her decision. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing trial judges to make such determinations based on their familiarity with local conditions and the overall interest of justice.

Orders