Legal Research
Cases
The State of Western Australia v Anthonisz

The State of Western Australia v Anthonisz

Case [2023] WASC 67 10 March 2023

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- ANTHONISZ [2023] WASC 67
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   7 MARCH 2023
DELIVERED          :   10 MARCH 2023
FILE NO/S:   INS 6 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
JACOB DANIEL ANTHONISZ
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Accused's application for trial by judge alone pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) - Pre-trial publicity - Complexity of issues at trial

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 83
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118

Result:

Trial by judge alone ordered

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	Mr M Cvetkoski
Accused	:	Mr S D Freitag SC

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	Hammond Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Arthurs v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 182
Bell v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2014] WASC 260
Chiha v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASC 147
LFG v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 88; (2015) 48 WAR 178
Steele v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 133
The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 2] [2013] WASC 280
The State of Western Australia v Mack [2012] WASC 127
The State of Western Australia v Martinez & Ors [2006] WASC 25; (2006) 159 A Crim R 380
The State of Western Australia v Rayney [2011] WASC 326; (2011) 42 WAR 383
The State of Western Australia v Wark [2017] WASC 154
TVM v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 299; (2007) 180 A Crim R 183

MCGRATH J:

The accused, Mr Anthonisz, is charged with 542 counts of being a public officer, who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse acted corruptly in the performance or discharge of the functions of his office, so as to gain a benefit for Paul Ronald Whyte and himself contrary to s 83(c) of the Criminal Code.
Mr Anthonisz has pleaded not guilty to the 542 counts and will appear for his trial in August 2023.
Mr Anthonisz applies, pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CPA), that his trial be by a judge alone without a jury.[1]
[1] Application for trial by judge alone filed 5 January 2023.
The basis of the application is that it is in the interests of justice to grant the order for a trial by judge alone given the extent and nature of the pre-trial publicity (which has raised the danger of prejudice or prejudgment of the accused), and that the trier of fact will be required to consider voluminous complex evidence.
The State does not oppose the application. However, the fact that the State does not oppose the application is not determinative of the matter. I must be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to order a trial by judge alone. Having considered all relevant factors bearing on…

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Anthonisz [2023] WASC 67
Case: [2023] WASC 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Jacob Daniel Anthonisz has been charged with 542 counts of corruption as a public officer, contrary to s 83(c) of the Criminal Code. Anthonisz has pleaded not guilty and his trial is set for August 2023. He applied for a trial by judge alone under s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (CPA), arguing that the extensive pre-trial publicity and complexity of the evidence would create a risk of prejudice or pre-judgment by a jury. The State did not oppose the application.

The court considered the legal principles relevant to s 118 of the CPA, including that the accused does not have an absolute right to a trial by judge alone. The court must be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to order a trial by judge alone, which includes not only the interests of the accused but also the public interest in the proper functioning and integrity of the criminal justice system.

The court considered the nature and extent of the pre-trial publicity, which was extensive and negative, creating a public climate of hostility and prejudice towards Anthonisz and the co-offender. The court also considered the complexity of the evidence, which involved numerous corporations, bank accounts, transactions and documents.

Having considered the composite weight of the relevant factors, the court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to order a trial by judge alone to mitigate the risk of prejudice or pre-judgment by a jury. Therefore, the application was granted.

The final orders were that Anthonisz's trial will be conducted before a judge alone without a jury. The reasons for the decision were certified and signed by an associate to Justice McGrath on 9 March 2023.

Orders