THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BROWN [No 2] [2013] WASC 280
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 280 | |
| Case No: | INS:145/2012 | 25 JUNE 2013 | |
| Coram: | JENKINS J | 23/07/13 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA GARRY EDMUND BROWN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Trial by judge alone Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 27, s 28 Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118 |
Case References: | Coates v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 142 Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283 The State of Western Australia v Evans [2012] WASC 87 TVM v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 299 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Prosecution
AND
GARRY EDMUND BROWN
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s 27, s 28
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118
Result:
Application granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Prosecution : Ms A L Forrester
Accused : Ms H E Prince & Ms N H Erlandson
Solicitors:
Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused : Legal Aid (WA)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Coates v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 142
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283
The State of Western Australia v Evans [2012] WASC 87
TVM v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASC 299
- JENKINS J:
(These reasons were delivered orally and have been edited from the transcript.)
1 The applicant, accused Garry Edmund Brown, is charged with two counts of murder. The indictment alleges:
(1) that on 24 August 2011 at Maylands, the accused murdered Christopher Stoodley; and
(2) on the same date and at the same place, the accused murdered Jenni Kay Barrett.
2 The trial of these charges has been listed for four weeks commencing on 5 August 2013. By application dated 23 May 2013, the accused applies for an order, pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (the Act) s 118, for a trial by judge alone without a jury.
3 The application is supported by the affidavit of Natasha Heidi Erlandson, the accused's solicitor. The parties also request me to have regard to the State's brief for prosecution. I have found it unnecessary to look at the subpoenaed documents.
4 The Act, s 118, relevantly provides:
(1) If an accused is committed on a charge to a superior court or indicted in a superior court on a charge, the prosecutor or the accused may apply to the court for an order that the trial of the charge be by a judge alone…
Continue reading The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- The State of Western Australia v Brown [No 2] [2013] WASC 280
- Case
- [2013] WASC 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the state sought a trial by judge alone in a criminal matter involving Brown. The dispute centred on whether the case should proceed in the manner specified, given the nature of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the case. The court was tasked with determining whether the application to proceed without a jury was appropriate.
The primary legal issue was whether the application to conduct the trial by a judge alone was justified under the applicable statutes. The court considered the criteria set out in the relevant legislation, which included the seriousness of the offence, the complexity of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice to the accused if tried by a jury. The court also evaluated whether there were any factors that would make a jury trial particularly unsuitable, such as the potential for public interest or sensitivity in the case.
After examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the application met the necessary criteria for a trial by judge alone. The seriousness of the offence, the complexity of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice if tried by a jury were all deemed sufficient grounds. The court found that the case was appropriate for a judge-alone trial and granted the application accordingly. The final orders were made in accordance with the court's decision.
The primary legal issue was whether the application to conduct the trial by a judge alone was justified under the applicable statutes. The court considered the criteria set out in the relevant legislation, which included the seriousness of the offence, the complexity of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice to the accused if tried by a jury. The court also evaluated whether there were any factors that would make a jury trial particularly unsuitable, such as the potential for public interest or sensitivity in the case.
After examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the application met the necessary criteria for a trial by judge alone. The seriousness of the offence, the complexity of the evidence, and the potential for prejudice if tried by a jury were all deemed sufficient grounds. The court found that the case was appropriate for a judge-alone trial and granted the application accordingly. The final orders were made in accordance with the court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application granted
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.