R v Turnbull (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 189

R v Turnbull (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 189

The venue for trial should not be Moree and should be Sydney because the evidence showed a significant and longstanding level of community feeling in the Moree district about native vegetation laws, which were central to the Crown case on motive, creating at least a reasonable perception that a trial at Moree would not be fair to both the Crown and the Accused. In addition, recent experience at Moree showed substantial practical difficulty empanelling juries, likely compounded by April cotton harvesting, possible juror associations with the Accused, his family, Crown witnesses, or views about native vegetation laws. Those matters satisfied the concerns under s.30(a) and provided an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Concerning an Indictment for Murder and Detention Without Consent, With a Pre Trial Venue Application / After Arraignment and Before Trial; Interlocutory Ruling on Venue
Outcome
Venue changed from Moree; the trial of the Accused is to proceed at the Supreme Court in Sydney in April 2016.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'jury Trial' 'pre Trial Publicity and Local Prejudice' 'expediency of Venue' 'substantial Impairment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'jury Trial' 'pre Trial Publicity and Local Prejudice' 'expediency of Venue' 'substantial Impairment']

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 Concerning an Indictment for Murder and Detention Without Consent, With a Pre Trial Venue Application / After Arraignment and Before Trial; Interlocutory Ruling on Venue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial of the Accused should proceed at Moree, where the alleged offences occurred, or at Sydney.' 'Whether a fair or unprejudiced trial could be had at Moree for the purposes of s.30(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether it was otherwise expedient to change the venue from Moree for the purposes of s.30(b) Criminal Procedure Act 1986, including because of difficulties empanelling a jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The venue for trial should not be Moree and should be Sydney because the evidence showed a significant and longstanding level of community feeling in the Moree district about native vegetation laws, which were central to the Crown case on motive, creating at least a reasonable perception that a trial at Moree would not be fair to both the Crown and the Accused. In addition, recent experience at Moree showed substantial practical difficulty empanelling juries, likely compounded by April cotton harvesting, possible juror associations with the Accused, his family, Crown witnesses, or views about native vegetation laws. Those matters satisfied the concerns under s.30(a) and provided an...

Court Disposition

Venue changed from Moree; the trial of the Accused is to proceed at the Supreme Court in Sydney in April 2016.

Orders

  • ['The trial of the Accused proceed at the Supreme Court in Sydney in April 2016.' 'The trial was fixed to commence on 4 April 2016 with an estimate of three-to-four weeks.']