R v Fitzpatrick [2019] NSWSC 153

R v Fitzpatrick [2019] NSWSC 153

The Court was not satisfied that pre-trial publicity, social media activity, the deceased's local prominence, or incidents of threatening or improper conduct showed that a fair trial could not be had in Bathurst or that it was otherwise expedient to change venue. The Court considered that jury empanelment procedures, jury directions, court security measures and the Court's powers were capable of addressing the identified concerns, and that the balance of convenience favoured Bathurst because many witnesses and police officers resided on the western slopes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Murder; Change of Venue Application / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Application for change of venue refused; security-related referrals and restricted publication order made.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'jury Empanelment' 'court Security' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'pre Trial Publicity' 'jury Empanelment' 'court Security' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']

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 for Murder; Change of Venue Application / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's trial for murder should be moved from Bathurst because a fair or unprejudiced trial could not otherwise be had." 'Whether pre-trial publicity, social media commentary, local community ties to the deceased, and incidents involving supporters of the deceased created a sufficient risk to fairness or safety to justify a change of venue.' 'Whether it was otherwise expedient in the interests of justice to change the venue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that pre-trial publicity, social media activity, the deceased's local prominence, or incidents of threatening or improper conduct showed that a fair trial could not be had in Bathurst or that it was otherwise expedient to change venue. The Court considered that jury empanelment procedures, jury directions, court security measures and the Court's powers were capable of addressing the identified concerns, and that the balance of convenience favoured Bathurst because many witnesses and police officers resided on the western slopes.

Court Disposition

Application for change of venue refused; security-related referrals and restricted publication order made.

Orders

  • ['The application for a change of venue is refused.' "The affidavits of Katrina Anne Bentley, Paul John Fitzpatrick, Loretta Genita Casaceli and Joseph Dalzell be referred to the Sheriff's officer responsible for court security with a view to that officer reporting back on arrangements to ensure there is no repeat...