Legal Research
Cases
The State of Western Australia v Glasfurd

The State of Western Australia v Glasfurd

Case [2022] WASC 403 25 November 2022

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- GLASFURD [2022] WASC 403
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   24 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   25 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S:   INS 3 of 2022
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
JAMIE ERIC GLASFURD
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 - Expert evidence - Prejudicial evidentiary material - Whether directions likely to be effective

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 280
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59(1)(b), 59A(1)(b)

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	Mr B E F Tooker
Accused	:	Mr S D Freitag SC

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	Smiddy-Brown 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
R v Zammit [1999] NSWCCA 65
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 Glasfurd, is charged with one count of manslaughter contrary to s 280 of the Criminal Code (WA), one count of dangerous driving of a motor vehicle that was involved in an incident occasioning grievous bodily harm to another in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) and four counts of dangerous driving of a motor vehicle that was involved in an incident occasioning bodily harm to another in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 59A(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
Mr Glasfurd has pleaded not guilty to the six counts and will appear for his trial in February 2023.
Mr Glasfurd 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 on 20 July 2022.
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 pre-judgment against the accused), that the trier of fact will be required to…

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Glasfurd [2022] WASC 403
Case: [2022] WASC 403
Decision Date: 25 NOVEMBER 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the State of Western Australia brought charges against Glasfurd, who was alleged to have committed a serious criminal offence. Glasfurd sought to have the trial conducted by a judge alone, without a jury, citing concerns about potential prejudice from extensive pre-trial publicity. The court was required to determine whether Glasfurd's application could succeed under section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), and if so, whether the potential prejudice could be sufficiently mitigated by directions to the jury.

The central legal issue was whether the anticipated pre-trial publicity was likely to prejudice a fair trial to such an extent that it would be appropriate to direct a trial by judge alone. Additionally, the court considered whether any directions given to the jury would be likely to sufficiently mitigate any prejudice, thus permitting a jury trial. The court examined the nature and extent of the publicity, the content of the evidence, and the potential impact on a jury's impartiality.

The Supreme Court, after considering the extensive pre-trial publicity and the content of the evidence, found that there was a significant risk of prejudice to the fairness of a jury trial. The publicity included detailed and potentially inflammatory information that could influence a jury's decision-making process. The court concluded that the potential prejudice outweighed any advantages of a jury trial and that the directions that could be given to the jury were unlikely to be effective in mitigating this risk. Consequently, the court granted Glasfurd's application for a trial by judge alone.

The final orders of the court mandated that the trial be conducted by a judge alone, without a jury. The judge was directed to provide comprehensive instructions to ensure that the trial remained as fair and unbiased as possible, despite the unavoidable influence of the pre-trial publicity.

Orders