R v Quintana (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 22

R v Quintana (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 22

The application was refused because the trial would require evaluation of self-defence and substantial impairment issues involving objective community standards, which was more consistent with determination by a jury of twelve than by a sole arbiter. The asserted combination of prejudicial factors amounted only to an ill-defined apprehension or vague suspicion that the jury would not give the accused a fair trial, the Court was required to proceed on the basis that juries follow directions, and the Court did not accept that judicial notice could be taken that those factors meant a fair jury trial could not be given.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Trial by Judge Alone in Criminal Proceedings / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling
Outcome
The application for trial by Judge alone is refused.
Legal Topics
['trial by Judge Alone' 'interests of Justice' 'self Defence' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'objective Community Standards' 'jury Directions' 'judicial Notice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['trial by Judge Alone' 'interests of Justice' 'self Defence' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'objective Community Standards' 'jury Directions' 'judicial Notice']

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

Application for Trial by Judge Alone in Criminal Proceedings / Pre Trial Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, where the prosecutor did not consent, it was in the interests of justice under s 132(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to order that the accused be tried by a Judge alone.' 'Whether the presence of self-defence and substantial impairment issues involving objective community standards favoured refusal of a trial by Judge alone order under s 132(5).' 'Whether asserted prejudice arising from drug use, provision of drugs, association with young women, unusual demeanour and treatment-resistant schizophrenia justified a Judge alone trial.' 'Whether the Court could take judicial notice that the identified factors combined to show the accused could not receive a fair jury trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the trial would require evaluation of self-defence and substantial impairment issues involving objective community standards, which was more consistent with determination by a jury of twelve than by a sole arbiter. The asserted combination of prejudicial factors amounted only to an ill-defined apprehension or vague suspicion that the jury would not give the accused a fair trial, the Court was required to proceed on the basis that juries follow directions, and the Court did not accept that judicial notice could be taken that those factors meant a fair jury trial could not be given.

Court Disposition

The application for trial by Judge alone is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for trial by Judge alone is refused.']