Tasmania v Jones - [2022] TASSC 24

[2022] TASSC 24

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Jones [2022] TASSC 24

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  JONES, Scott Andrew Francis

A
JONES, Brendan Lee

FILE NOS:  425/2013, 354/2014, 71/2017
DELIVERED ON:  6 June 2019
DATE PUBLISHED:  13 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6 September 2018, 3 May 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Joint or separate trial – Embarrassment or prejudice – Giretti charges of drug trafficking – Application for separate trials.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 363.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3079]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence – Generally – Giretti charges of drug trafficking – Probative value of evidence against one co-accused is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the other co-accused and presentation of that evidence does not create a significant risk of injustice or an unfair trial.

Evidence Act2001 (Tas), s 137.
R v Lao and Nguyen [2002] VSCA 157, 5 VR 129, R v Holden [2001] VSCA 63, 120 A Crim R 240, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2680]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  A Shand
             Accused A:  G Richardson
             Accused Brendan Jones:                F Cangelosi
             Accused Scott Jones:  C Rainbird
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused A:  G A Richardson
             Accused Scott Jones:  Craig Rainbird Barrister & Solicitors

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 24
Number of paragraphs: 23

Serial No 24/2022

File Nos 425/2013

354/2014
71/2017

STATE OF TASMANIA v SCOTT ANDREW FRANCIS JONES,
A and BRENDAN LEE JONES

REASONS FOR RULING BRETT J

6 June 2019

The indictment charges the accused as follows:
Count 1A and Scott Jones (Scott) are charged with trafficking in morphine between 9 September 2009 and 9 September 2013.
Count 2Scott is charged with trafficking in oxycodone between 9 September 2009 and 4 December 2013.
Count 3Scott and Brendan Jones (Brendan) are jointly charged with trafficking in cannabis between 1 June 2013 and 9 September 2013.
Brendan is Scott's son.
A applies for an order that the trial against her in respect of count 1 be conducted separately from the trial against the other accused on the indictment, which would include the trial against Scott in respect of that count. The power to make that order arises pursuant to s 363 of the Criminal Code. Brendan has applied for a similar order in respect of count 3.

The law

The jurisdiction under s 363 arises "during the trial". Each accused has been called upon to plead to the indictment, and each has entered a plea of not guilty to the relevant count or counts. Accordingly, the trial has commenced: s 351 of the Code. I am authorised to determine the applications by A and Brendan before a jury is sworn, by virtue of the provisions of s 361A of the Code.
The legal principles applicable to…

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 Tasmania v Jones

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Jones [2022] TASSC 24
Case: [2022] TASSC 24
Decision Date: 6 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tasmania v Jones, the respondent applied for separate trials in relation to two charges of drug trafficking that stemmed from the Giretti operation. The application was made to avoid any prejudice or embarrassment that might arise from the joinder of the charges. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the joinder of the charges would cause such prejudice or embarrassment to the respondent that it would necessitate separate trials.

The court considered whether the prejudice or embarrassment to the respondent would be substantial enough to warrant separate trials. The court examined the nature of the charges, the evidence that would be adduced, and the potential impact on the respondent's right to a fair trial. The court also considered the public interest in having the matters resolved efficiently and the potential for delay if separate trials were ordered. Ultimately, the court found that the joinder of the charges would not cause substantial prejudice or embarrassment to the respondent, and the application for separate trials was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania held that the respondent's concerns about prejudice and embarrassment were not sufficient to warrant separate trials. The court found that the evidence in relation to the two charges was largely independent and that there was no significant risk of prejudice arising from the joinder of the charges. The court also noted that the public interest in resolving the matters efficiently outweighed any potential prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the application for separate trials was dismissed, and the charges were to be tried jointly.

Orders