Regina v Monroe - [2003] NSWSC 55

Reported Decision:
(2003) 56 NSWLR 652

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Monroe [2003] NSWSC 55 revised - 18/03/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 12/02/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

DECISION: 1. The prosecuting authority is to serve on the solicitor for the accused copies of all medical reports obtained by the Crown that are relevant to the case, such service to be effected by 12 noon on 17 February 2003. 2. The prosecuting authority is to serve on the solicitor for the accused copies of any further medical reports hereafter obtained by the Crown that are relevant to the case, such service to be effected within 24 hours of receipt of such reports. 3. The accused is to serve on the solicitor for the prosecuting authority any reports of Professor Whitwell that he has obtained, such service to be effected by 4pm on 17 February 2003. 4. The accused is to serve on the solicitor for the prosecuting authority any reports hereafter obtained on his behalf from any expert medical practitioner proposed to be relied upon by the accused, such service to be effected within 48 hours of receipt of any such reports. 5. Service as required by paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this order may be effected by facsimile to the solicitor for the relevant party. 6. Liberty to apply on three days notice.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Criminal trial - Pre-trial disclosure - Complex criminal trial - Procedure - Complex medical evidence - Criteria for complex criminal trial - Words and phrases: "and" - "or" - "having regard to" - "includes" - "is to" - Compound verb "is to" has mandatory effect - Ambush - Discretion - Moulding order - Case by case approach

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-Trial Disclosure) Act 2001 (No. 7 of 2001)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986: Div 2A, ss 47A, 47C, 47I
Supreme Court Practice Note No. 98 ((1998) 43 NSWLR 525
Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901 (NSW)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Police Offences Act 1928 -1954 (Vic)
Licensing Ordinance 1939-1967 (NT)
Social Welfare Ordinance 1964 (NT)

CASES CITED: Associated Newspapers Limited v Wavish (1956) 96 CLR 526
Regina v Neville (1966) 83 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 501
Wavish v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1959) VR 57
Re The Licensing Ordinance (1968) 13 FLR 143
Gillespie v Ford (1978) 19 ALR 102
Re Kotses (1995) 132 ALR 409
Regina v Nguyen; Regina v Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 1254 (18 April 2002, unreported)
DPP v Sinton [2000] NSWSC 473 (31 May 2000, unreported)
Makita Australia Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705

PARTIES :
Regina
James Stewart Monroe

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70054/02

COUNSEL: Crown - Mr R Herps
Accused - Mr R Hoenig

SOLICITORS: Crown - Ms L Viney (DPP)
Accused - Ms K Robinson (Legal Aid Commission of NSW)

- 15 -

O’KEEFE J

14 February 2002

70054/02 Regina v Monroe

JUDGMENT on application for pre-trial disclosure.
Introduction

1 Application has been made by the Crown for orders…

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 Monroe

Details

AGLC: Regina v Monroe [2003] NSWSC 55
Case: [2003] NSWSC 55
Decision Date: 14 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Crown's prosecution of the respondent, Monroe, on charges of murder and attempted murder. Monroe was accused of shooting his partner and her male friend. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the trial should be classified as a complex criminal trial under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The legal issue before the court was whether the trial qualified as a complex criminal trial due to the extensive and intricate medical evidence involved.

The court considered whether the trial should be classified as a complex criminal trial, which would grant the court the authority to manage the case more flexibly. The court examined the definition of a complex criminal trial, which includes cases where the evidence involves complex medical evidence. The court was required to assess the extent and complexity of the medical evidence and whether it warranted the designation of a complex criminal trial. The court concluded that the case did not meet the threshold for a complex criminal trial, as the medical evidence, although extensive, was not so complex that it warranted the special procedures and powers associated with such trials.

The court found that the medical evidence, while detailed, did not meet the statutory criteria for a complex criminal trial. The evidence, although extensive, did not involve novel or particularly intricate scientific principles that would necessitate the special procedures and powers associated with complex criminal trials. The court exercised its discretion and decided against designating the trial as complex, finding that the case could be adequately managed within the ordinary framework of a criminal trial. The court also considered the potential for "ambush" tactics and the need to ensure a fair trial, but ultimately concluded that the case did not warrant the special measures associated with a complex criminal trial.

The court's decision not to classify the trial as a complex criminal trial meant that the case would proceed under the ordinary rules and procedures for criminal trials. The court's ruling did not prejudice the rights of the respondent or the prosecution, and the trial continued without the special measures associated with complex criminal trials. The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the medical evidence and a consideration of the statutory criteria for complex criminal trials. The court's ruling ensured that the case was managed in a fair and efficient manner, without the need for the additional procedures and powers associated with complex criminal trials.

Orders