Attwater v R [2017] NSWSC 327

Attwater v R [2017] NSWSC 327

The applicant did not demonstrate a greater volume of prejudicial publicity in the Coffs Harbour or north coast region, and much of the publicity relied on was accurate or accessible online from any location. The prior hostility at Grafton Local Court was serious but had not recurred, about a year would have elapsed before trial, and security at Coffs Harbour and directions or orders by the trial judge could address risks. Jury safeguards were capable of ensuring a fair trial. Against the applicant’s security concerns stood the inconvenience and cost to numerous north coast witnesses, the health and family responsibilities of Mr Davis, the possible need for a view, and the likelihood of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Application for Change of Venue / Pre Trial Notice of Motion to Vacate the Order Fixing Trial at Coffs Harbour and Direct That the Trial Proceed at Sydney
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'jury Trial Safeguards' 'court Security' 'convenience of Witnesses' 'delay']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'fair or Unprejudiced Trial' 'prejudicial Publicity' 'jury Trial Safeguards' 'court Security' 'convenience of Witnesses' 'delay']

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 Application for Change of Venue / Pre Trial Notice of Motion to Vacate the Order Fixing Trial at Coffs Harbour and Direct That the Trial Proceed at Sydney

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a fair or unprejudiced trial could be had at Coffs Harbour despite publicity and community hostility' 'Whether it was expedient to change the venue to Sydney because of security concerns, witness convenience, possible view and delay' 'Whether the applicant established the necessity for a change of venue']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate a greater volume of prejudicial publicity in the Coffs Harbour or north coast region, and much of the publicity relied on was accurate or accessible online from any location. The prior hostility at Grafton Local Court was serious but had not recurred, about a year would have elapsed before trial, and security at Coffs Harbour and directions or orders by the trial judge could address risks. Jury safeguards were capable of ensuring a fair trial. Against the applicant’s security concerns stood the inconvenience and cost to numerous north coast witnesses, the health and family responsibilities of Mr Davis, the possible need for a view, and the likelihood of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The orders sought in the Notice of Motion were declined.']