R v Stephen [2017] NSWSC 1740

R v Stephen [2017] NSWSC 1740

The notice of motion was dismissed because, although the factors relied on by the accused had merit, they were outweighed by countervailing considerations: the judge was confident a jury could be empanelled and remain impartial at Broken Hill with sufficient jury panels and appropriate directions, publicity was not extensive or detailed and much was favourable to the accused, the inconvenience to the accused, her brother, and her treatment did not justify transfer, a significant majority of witnesses lived in or around Broken Hill, the application had been abandoned then reactivated close to trial, moving the trial risked delay, and the administration of justice supported having serious...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on a Count of Murder / Pre Trial Notice of Motion for Change of Venue From Broken Hill to Sydney
Outcome
The accused's notice of motion for change of venue was dismissed and the Broken Hill trial date was confirmed.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'impartial Jury' 'jury Empanelment' 'regional Venue']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'impartial Jury' 'jury Empanelment' 'regional Venue']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings on a Count of Murder / Pre Trial Notice of Motion for Change of Venue From Broken Hill to Sydney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's murder trial should be transferred from the Supreme Court sitting at Broken Hill to Sydney under s 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)." 'Whether a fair or unprejudiced trial could be had at Broken Hill, including whether an impartial jury could be empanelled despite publicity and community knowledge.' "Whether other factors, including expense, the accused's treatment, family support, witness convenience, AVL evidence, procedural history, and regional administration of justice, made it expedient to change venue."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because, although the factors relied on by the accused had merit, they were outweighed by countervailing considerations: the judge was confident a jury could be empanelled and remain impartial at Broken Hill with sufficient jury panels and appropriate directions, publicity was not extensive or detailed and much was favourable to the accused, the inconvenience to the accused, her brother, and her treatment did not justify transfer, a significant majority of witnesses lived in or around Broken Hill, the application had been abandoned then reactivated close to trial, moving the trial risked delay, and the administration of justice supported having serious...

Court Disposition

The accused's notice of motion for change of venue was dismissed and the Broken Hill trial date was confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of the applicant of 29 November 2017 is dismissed.' 'The trial date of Monday 5 February 2018 at Broken Hill is confirmed, with the jury panel to be called not before Wednesday 7 February 2018.' 'The listing of the matter for a further directions hearing before me at 10 AM on Wednesday 24...