Regina (C'Wealth) v Elomar & Ors [No 1] [2008] NSWSC 1442

Regina (C'Wealth) v Elomar & Ors [No 1] [2008] NSWSC 1442

The Court allowed the roadmap and the amended introductory remarks and written direction because the trial was unusually lengthy and factually complex, the jury required assistance from the outset, the roadmap was only a chronological aid and not a schedule of overt acts or proof of facts, and s 55B of the Jury Act 1977 and the Court's inherent or implied powers authorised written directions at any stage of the trial. Explaining what is and is not a terrorist act at the outset promoted fairness to the accused and clarity for the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Judgment on Crown Roadmap Document and Introductory Remarks to the Jury at the Commencement of Trial
Outcome
The chronology and, subject to amendments, the introductory remarks in MFI 5 and written direction in MFI 6 were allowed.
Legal Topics
['crown Opening' 'roadmap or Chronology for Jury' 'written Jury Directions' 'terrorist Act Direction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['crown Opening' 'roadmap or Chronology for Jury' 'written Jury Directions' 'terrorist Act Direction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'fair Trial']

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 Proceeding / Judgment on Crown Roadmap Document and Introductory Remarks to the Jury at the Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to give the jury a roadmap or chronology of factual allegations during the Crown opening.' 'Whether introductory oral remarks and written directions explaining the offence and the definition of a terrorist act should be given to the jury at the outset of the trial.' "Whether written directions to a jury may be given at the outset of a trial under the Jury Act 1977 or under the trial judge's inherent or implied powers." 'Whether the proposed roadmap or directions would unfairly prejudice the accused or distract the jury from the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the roadmap and the amended introductory remarks and written direction because the trial was unusually lengthy and factually complex, the jury required assistance from the outset, the roadmap was only a chronological aid and not a schedule of overt acts or proof of facts, and s 55B of the Jury Act 1977 and the Court's inherent or implied powers authorised written directions at any stage of the trial. Explaining what is and is not a terrorist act at the outset promoted fairness to the accused and clarity for the jury.

Court Disposition

The chronology and, subject to amendments, the introductory remarks in MFI 5 and written direction in MFI 6 were allowed.

Orders

  • ["The roadmap may be distributed to the jury as the Crown wishes, with amendments incorporating Mr Scragg's further suggestion as to headings on each page." 'The introductory remarks contained in MFI 5 and the written direction in MFI 6 are allowed subject to the amendments made by the Court.']