Woods and Williams v The Queen - [2010] NTSC 36

Woods & Williams v The Queen [2010] NTSC 36

PARTIES:   WOODS, Graham
and
WILLIAMS, Julian
and
THE QUEEN
TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE
TERRITORY EXERCISING
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   20912126, 20912166
DELIVERED:   12 July 2010 (via video to Alice
Springs)
HEARING DATES:   11 June 2010
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF PLACE OF TRIAL
‘Good cause’ must exist in order to change trial venue – is there a real or
perceived risk that the accused will not receive a fair trial – the applicants’
concerns regarding prejudice can be appropriately dealt with by the trial
judge at the time of jury selection and through directions during the course
of the trial – not satisfied that ‘good cause’ has been shown – Applications
refused.
Criminal Code (NT) s 297(2)
DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 148; R v Iaria (2004) 145 A Crim R 74, applied.
ACH [2002] 130 A Crim R 40; Lange (1987) 25 A Crim R 139; “L” (1989)
43 A Crim R 51; R v Gojanovic [2005] VSC 9; R v Anderson (1974) 5 ALR
268; Webb (1992) 64 A Crim R 38, considered.
The Queen v Pepperill (1980) 54 FLR 327, distinguished.
Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20; Glennon v The Queen [1992] 173 CLR
592, followed.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:

Applicant Woods:   Mr Goldflam
Applicant Williams:   Mr Brustman SC
Respondent:   Mr Noble
Solicitors:

Applicant Woods:   NTLAC
Applicant Williams:   CAALAS
Respondent:   DPP
Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number:   BLO 1005
Number of pages:   14
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Woods & Williams v The Queen [2010] NTSC 36
No. 20912126, 20912166
BETWEEN:
GRAHAM WOODS
Applicant

AND:
JULIAN WILLIAMS
Applicant

AND:
THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
RULING ON CHANGE OF VENUE APPLICATION
(Delivered 12 July 2010)

Introduction

[1]	Graham Woods and Julian Williams (“the applicants”) are remanded to stand
trial on 14 September 2010 at Alice Springs. The indictment filed charges
them jointly with the murder of Edward Hargraves. The date of the alleged
offence is 3 April 2009.
[2]	The applicants apply for a change of venue pursuant to s 297(2) Criminal
Code (NT), to move the trial from Alice Springs to Darwin. The application
is opposed by the Crown. Section 297 Criminal Code (NT) provides:

297 Change of place of trial
(1) When a person has been committed for trial at a court
held at any place, whether he has been admitted to bail
or not, the Supreme Court or a judge thereof may, on the
application of the Crown or of the accused person and
upon good cause shown, order that the trial shall be held
at some other place.

(2) When an indictment has been presented against any such
person the court may, on the application of the Crown or
the accused person and upon good cause shown, order
that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woods and Williams v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NTSC 36
Decision Date: 12/07/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Graham Woods and Julian Williams, were remanded to stand trial on 14 September 2010 at Alice Springs for the alleged murder of Edward Hargraves on 3 April 2009. They applied for a change of venue from Alice Springs to Darwin, contending that "good cause" had been shown for the change. The Crown opposed the application. The applicants argued that the deceased was a prominent person in Alice Springs, that there had been significant public grief, media reporting highlighting racial issues, and evidential material indicating racial issues surrounding the incident. They also argued that they had been subject to specific prejudice, and that there was a historical racially skewed composition of juries in Alice Springs. The applicants contended that these factors created a risk that they would not receive a fair trial if the jury was drawn from the Alice Springs populace.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a real or perceived risk that the accused would not receive a fair trial, and if "good cause" had been shown to change the venue of the trial. The court found that the applicants' concerns regarding prejudice could be appropriately dealt with by the trial judge at the time of jury selection and through directions during the course of the trial. The court was not satisfied that "good cause" had been shown to change the venue of the trial.

The court declined to order the venue of the trial be changed and confirmed that the trial would commence on 14 September 2010 at Alice Springs. The reasons for the decision would not be published until after the completion of the trial.

Orders