Stewart v R [2019] NSWDC 645

Stewart v R [2019] NSWDC 645

The applicant did not discharge the onus of establishing that previous adverse local print media publicity would prevent a fair and unprejudiced trial in Grafton, because the publicity was confined on the evidence to print media, was at least seven months old, and prejudice could be addressed through jury selection under the Jury Act, questioning of potential jurors, excusal if necessary, expanded jury panels, and specific judicial warnings; if empanelment later showed a fair trial could not be conducted, the application could be reconsidered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Change of Venue / Procedural Ruling Before Trial
Outcome
Application refused; the court declined to make the orders sought by the applicant.
Legal Topics
['change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'prejudicial Media Publicity' 'jury Empanelment' 'judicial Directions and Warnings']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['change of Venue' 'fair Trial' 'prejudicial Media Publicity' 'jury Empanelment' 'judicial Directions and Warnings']

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 Application for Change of Venue / Procedural Ruling Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's trial listed at Grafton District Court should be moved to another District Court because prior local media reporting created a risk that a fair and unprejudiced trial could not be had." 'Whether jury selection procedures, challenges, questioning, and judicial directions or warnings would be sufficient to address any prejudice from prior publicity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not discharge the onus of establishing that previous adverse local print media publicity would prevent a fair and unprejudiced trial in Grafton, because the publicity was confined on the evidence to print media, was at least seven months old, and prejudice could be addressed through jury selection under the Jury Act, questioning of potential jurors, excusal if necessary, expanded jury panels, and specific judicial warnings; if empanelment later showed a fair trial could not be conducted, the application could be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Application refused; the court declined to make the orders sought by the applicant.

Orders

  • ['I decline to make the orders sought by the applicant.']