The State of Western Australia v Reddington
[2025] WASC 256
•27 JUNE 2025
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- REDDINGTON [2025] WASC 256
CORAM: MCGRATH J
HEARD: 16 & 17 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S: INS 18 of 2024
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
RAYMOND REDDINGTON
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Murder - Accused application to adjourn trial - Vacate trial dates - Illness of accused - Prejudice to accused - Whether accused has a reasonable opportunity to present his case at trial - Public interest factors
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Act2004, s 89
Result:
Application to adjourn trial and vacate trial dates granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Prosecution | : | Mr B Stanwix SC |
| Accused | : | Mr J A Davies |
Solicitors:
| Prosecution | : | Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) |
| Accused | : | Mr J A Davies |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
MCGRATH J:
Mr Reddington has been indicted on one count that on or about 18 March 1986 he wilfully murdered Mrs Sharon Fulton, being Mr Reddington's lawful wife.
Mr Reddington has pleaded not guilty to that charge and is proceeding to a five to six‑week trial before a judge and jury commencing on 23 July 2025.
Mr Reddington has applied to adjourn the trial and to vacate the trial dates to another suitable trial period pursuant to s 89 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).
The basis of the application is the impact of proposed chemotherapy treatment that Mr Reddington will be undertaking during the period of the trial to address his incurable underlying illness.
For the following reasons, I have determined it is necessary that the trial dates be vacated for the reason that Mr Reddington will be undertaking his chemotherapy treatment during the period of a trial estimated to last five to six weeks.
Background facts
The State has filed a detailed statement of material facts. In short, Mrs Fulton disappeared on 18 March 1986. She has not been seen since that date. The police commenced a missing persons inquiry and an investigation but did not charge the accused until October 2023.
At the time of her disappearance, she was 39 years of age, married with four children and living what the State submits was an unassuming life in the Perth suburb of Duncraig.
The State case is that Mrs Fulton disappeared because she was murdered by Mr Reddington. The State contends that Mr Reddington attacked her on that day, most likely in her own home, and he did so intending to kill her. Further, either on that day, or in the days following, he disposed of her body in a manner that has meant it has never been found.
The State contends that by no later than February 1986, Mrs Fulton was contemplating divorcing Mr Reddington. At that time, Mr Reddington knew that it was inevitable that his wife would seek to leave him and that, having already attempted counselling which had broken down, there would be no reconciliation. Therefore, rather than face the financial and emotional devastation of divorce, he decided to kill Mrs Fulton.
On 25 February 1986, three weeks prior to Mrs Fulton's disappearance, Mr Reddington had life insurance policies taken out for both him and Mrs Fulton. The State said it is not known whether Mrs Fulton signed the form at Mr Reddington's urging or whether he forged her signature. Mrs Fulton's life insurance policy appointed Mr Reddington as the sole beneficiary of a $120,000 sum payable upon her death. The State contends Mr Reddington took out life insurance policies because he knew that Mrs Fulton would, in the near future, be dead and he would in due course be able to claim the insurance.
The State contends that on 18 March 1986, which was towards the end of WA schools' first term, Mrs Fulton had a full schedule of things to do, both routine and irregular. After her routine tasks of getting the children off to school she would attend to other family matters. Mrs Fulton did not pick up one of her sons from an appointment at 10.30 am, she did not attend a gathering organised by one of her friends, nor did she attend to pick up her daughter at 3.00 pm. The State contends this was unusual and that her disappearance was due to the killing.
The State relies upon what is contended to be contradictory statements made by Mr Reddington regarding the disappearance of his wife to the police.
I now turn to the medical position of Mr Reddington.
Medical position of Mr Reddington
Mr Reddington has an incurable extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, diagnosed in March 2025. Mr Reddington is not presently suitable for surgery due to frailty and comorbidities.
I have been provided with medical reports from Dr Christopher Lomma, consultant services at Fiona Stanley Hospital, dated 30 April 2025 and 28 May 2025. I have also been provided with other medical reports which outline the underlying issues.
Mr Reddington is undergoing a combination of cisplatin, gemcitabine and durvalumab chemoimmunotherapy for disease control and symptom management.
The treatment is to be administrated intravenously on a three‑week cycle on day 1 and day 8 of each cycle.
Mr Reddington commenced his first cycle, however the day 8 treatment of that cycle was missed due to Mr Reddington being admitted to hospital with influenza. Mr Reddington's treatment is being 'cautiously titrated' due to frailty and comorbidities. The medical practitioners have commenced his chemotherapy at a lower dose (reduced by 20%) to observe and assess how well he tolerates the treatment and its possible side effects. If Mr Reddington copes without serious side effects, the medical practitioners will gradually increase the dose towards the full level of required treatment.
Mr Reddington's prognosis is said to be poor but uncertain, with the medical practitioner stating that his life span range could be 18 months to multiple years, depending upon the treatment response and complication development.
Mr Reddington is understood to be cognitively sound.
The likely side effects of the chemoimmunotherapy are febrile neutropenia (fever associated with low white blood cells), fatigue, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, hearing impairment and peripheral neuropathy (nerve pain/tingling).
Mr Reddington had treatment scheduled for 4 June 2025, but it was postponed due to a low white blood cell count. Counsel for Mr Reddington submitted that since that day, he has been frequently hospitalised, often drowsy and falling asleep because of pain and nausea from medication. I note that the medical practitioners do not directly make these observations. Rather, it is clear that counsel is acting on Mr Reddington's self-reporting.
The defence submission is that the treatment regime and side effects are likely to impair Mr Reddington's ability to engage properly with the trial given the stamina and energy required. There is expected to be fatigue which will compound over cycles. Further, Mr Reddington's cognitive functions will be affected due to 'chemo brain' which will impair concentration, memory and processing. Further, there is the risk of immune‑related neurological complications. Counsel for Mr Reddington submitted that even in the absence of a neurological complication, the fatigue and cognitive impairment will be such that there will be, in any event, an inability to follow complex evidence and assist counsel to the standard required over a five to six‑week trial of the most serious allegation known to the law.
The defence says that the treatment scheduling is incompatible with the trial process with the chemotherapy cycles overlapping the trial period.
In short, the defence position is that it is highly unlikely that Mr Reddington will be physically and cognitively able to attend, follow and participate meaningfully in a five to six‑week Supreme Court trial commencing 23 July 2025. In addition, counsel submits there will be a risk of trial interruption, unfairness and denial of procedural rights. These risks are substantial and are of real likelihood.
The prosecution submits that whilst the chemotherapy will impact on Mr Reddington, the court process may be adjusted to permit the treatment on an ongoing basis. Counsel for the State submitted that the trial may be adjourned for short periods or for designated days depending on the extent of the chemotherapy treatment and the gravity of the side effects on Mr Reddington. Counsel for the State submitted that the court would be managing the illness of the accused in a similar manner as the court manages mental health issues of accused, who may require more frequent breaks in proceedings.
The State accepted in submissions that the State will not be prejudiced by the adjournment of the trial and vacating the trial dates. The State did observe, though, that there were a number of elderly witnesses whose evidence should be given at trial as soon as possible. The State observed that there may be the possibility that the evidence of elderly witnesses be pre-recorded prior to trial to secure the proposed testimony. There may be procedural issues with the proposal.
Assessment of application
In determining this application to adjourn the trial (vacate the trial dates) and re‑list the matter at a later date, I must consider the extent to which the reasons for the adjournment application are within the control of the party seeking the adjournment, the prejudice to any party, namely the State, the obligation to secure a fair trial with an impartial administration of justice, and the prejudice or difficulties which might be caused to others within the trial process, including witnesses, and the public interest in having criminal trials in particular conducted efficiently and without undue delay.
Ultimately, I find that Mr Reddington, an accused about to turn 80 years of age has been diagnosed with a terminal cancer and he will now undertake cycles of chemotherapy. The chemotherapy will be conducted during the very period of the trial. The trial is a historical allegation of murder. I have outlined the likely side effects of chemotherapy treatment. Whilst it is not possible to determine with certainty the extent of the side effects, a highly relevant consideration is that the accused is an elderly man in poor health.
To embark on a trial, hoping that Mr Reddington will manage whilst undergoing chemotherapy is fraught with risk. I am most concerned that the jury trial will become fragmented with lengthy adjournments whilst Mr Reddington endeavours to appear at his own trial. Further, I accept the defence submission that the treatment regime and the side effects will impair Mr Reddington's ability to engage and participate in his own trial. There is an unacceptable risk that the trial will be unfair to the accused. Mr Reddington must be afforded a period to undergo his chemotherapy treatment and to sufficiently recover from that treatment before commencing a trial of some five to six weeks in duration.
Accordingly, I grant the application and adjourn the trial to a date to be fixed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
CEM
Associate to the Hon Justice McGrath
2 JULY 2025
0
0
1