The Queen v Rolfe (No 1) - [2020] NTSC 80

CITATION:The Queen v Rolfe (No 1) [2020] NTSC 80
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

ROLFE, Zachary

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21942050
DELIVERED:  17 December 2020
HEARING DATE:  11 December 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Mildren AJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Practice and procedure – application for change of venue - whether there are grounds on which to conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the Accused will not have a fair and impartial trial in the locality where the alleged crime was committed
Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT), s 83(2)
Criminal Code (NT), s 297
Wood and Williams v R [2010] NTSC 36, ACH [2002] NTSC 32; 130 A Crim R 40, Webb (1992) 64 A Crim R 38, R v Iaria and Panozzo [2004] VSC 96, R v Lange (1987) 25 A Crim R 139, DPP v Cicolini [2008] 2 Qd R 313, Johnson v The Queen [2002] WASC 78, R v Pepperill & Ors (1981) 54 FLR 327, referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:S Callan SC
Accused:D Edwardson QC
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Tindall Gask Bentley
Judgment category classification:    A
Judgment ID Number:  Mil20566
Number of pages:  14

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The Queen v Rolfe (No.1) [2020] NTSC 80

No. 21942050
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

ZACHARY ROLFE

CORAM: MILDREN AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 December 2020)
Introduction

The Accused, Zachary Rolfe, is charged on indictment with one count of murder in relation to the shooting of the Deceased, Charles Arnold (“Kumanjayi”) Walker at Yuendumu on 9 November 2019.
In short summary, the Crown case against the Accused is that the Deceased was a 19 year old male residing in Yuendumu community. The Deceased had previously been convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment suspended (with conditions) after 8 months in relation to an aggravated assault and other offences. After his release from gaol the Deceased was required to abide by a curfew and other conditions including the wearing of an Electronic Monitoring Device and remaining at a nominated residence, namely Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Program Unit (CAAPU) in Alice Springs. Subsequently the Deceased removed the Electronic Monitoring Device and could not be located. Police efforts to locate the Deceased were unsuccessful and on 5 November 2019 a warrant was issued for his arrest.
On 6 November 2019, police at Yuendumu attempted to arrest the Deceased at House 577, Yuendumu. The Deceased threatened police with a small axe and then fled. On 7 November 2019, the Accused, a police Constable, along with other police attempted to locate the Deceased with a view to arresting him. The Accused and other police had viewed Body Worn Video (BWV) of the attempt to arrest the Deceased the previous day. Over the next two days police, including the Accused, made extensive enquiries in Yuendumu in an attempt to locate the Deceased without success. This…

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 The Queen v Rolfe (No 1)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Rolfe (No 1) [2020] NTSC 80
Case: [2020] NTSC 80
Decision Date: 17 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Rolfe, was charged with serious criminal offences. The nature of the dispute centred around an application by Rolfe to have the trial venue changed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the state. The applicant sought a change of venue based on concerns about the potential for a fair and impartial trial in the local jurisdiction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there were grounds for concluding that there was a reasonable possibility that Rolfe would not receive a fair and impartial trial in the locality where the alleged crime occurred. The court had to consider the evidence presented by the applicant and assess whether the potential bias in the community was sufficient to warrant a change of venue. The court also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of measures such as jury selection processes and voir dire to ensure a fair trial.

The court found that while there was some evidence of community sentiment against the applicant, it was not sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of bias that would preclude a fair trial. The court concluded that the measures in place, including rigorous jury selection and voir dire, were sufficient to mitigate any potential bias. Therefore, the application for a change of venue was dismissed.

The court ordered that the trial proceed in the original venue, noting that the applicant would still have the right to challenge the impartiality of individual jurors during the trial.

Orders