R v Cranston (No 19) [2022] NSWSC 1580

R v Cranston (No 19) [2022] NSWSC 1580

Because no statute or binding rule fixed the order of defence closing addresses between co-accused, and because an alphabetical indictment order or reverse order would not necessarily ensure fairness, the Court exercised its inherent power and judicial discretion to set the order by reference to the way the evidence and trial had unfolded. Fairness required Mr Menon, the only accused to give evidence and whose address was expected to be lengthy, to address first; Mr Onley second because his address was also expected to be lengthy; Mr Willmott before Mr Adam Cranston because Mr Stratton SC had carried the principal burden of cross-examining Crown witnesses; Mr Adam Cranston fourth; and Ms...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Involving Five Co Accused on One Indictment / Procedural Ruling on the Order of Defence Closing Addresses to the Jury
Outcome
The Court ruled that, after the Crown completed its address, defence counsel would be invited to address the jury in the order specified by the Court rather than by any automatic indictment or reverse indictment order.
Legal Topics
['multi Accused Trial' 'order of Defence Closing Addresses' 'jury Addresses' 'inherent Power to Manage Trial' 'indictment Order']
['criminal Procedure'] ['multi Accused Trial' 'order of Defence Closing Addresses' 'jury Addresses' 'inherent Power to Manage Trial' 'indictment Order']

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 Involving Five Co Accused on One Indictment / Procedural Ruling on the Order of Defence Closing Addresses to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether counsel for accused in a multi-accused criminal trial should deliver closing addresses in reverse indictment order where the indictment lists co-accused alphabetically.' 'Whether there is a rule requiring defence closing addresses to proceed in indictment order or reverse indictment order absent agreement.' 'What order of defence closing addresses would be fair in the circumstances of this trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because no statute or binding rule fixed the order of defence closing addresses between co-accused, and because an alphabetical indictment order or reverse order would not necessarily ensure fairness, the Court exercised its inherent power and judicial discretion to set the order by reference to the way the evidence and trial had unfolded. Fairness required Mr Menon, the only accused to give evidence and whose address was expected to be lengthy, to address first; Mr Onley second because his address was also expected to be lengthy; Mr Willmott before Mr Adam Cranston because Mr Stratton SC had carried the principal burden of cross-examining Crown witnesses; Mr Adam Cranston fourth; and Ms...

Court Disposition

The Court ruled that, after the Crown completed its address, defence counsel would be invited to address the jury in the order specified by the Court rather than by any automatic indictment or reverse indictment order.

Orders

  • ['Mr Bruckner for Mr Menon to address the jury first.' 'Mr Johnson for Mr Onley to address the jury second.' 'Mr Brasch for Mr Willmott to address the jury third.' 'Mr Stratton SC for Mr Cranston to address the jury fourth.' 'Mr Anderson SC for Ms Cranston to address the jury fifth.']