R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 988

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 988 Hearing dates: 21 July 2015 Date of orders: 21 July 2015 Decision date: 21 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Bellew J Decision: See paragraph [5] Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Juries – Where revised estimate of trial increased its likely length from 8 weeks to in excess of 12 weeks – Three additional jurors to be selected – No point of principle Legislation Cited: Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 965 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina – Crown Roger Caleb Rogerson - Accused Glen Patrick McNamara – Accused Representation: Counsel: Mr C Maxwell QC - Crown Mr G Thomas – Accused Rogerson Mr C Waterstreet – Accused McNamara

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown Katsoolis and Co – Accused Rogerson Kings Law Group – Accused McNamara File Number(s): 2014/157408; 2014/156921 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

INTRODUCTION 1. At the time of the arraignment of each of the accused, their legal representatives indicated to the list judge that the trial was estimated to take eight weeks to complete. In the course of proceedings last week, and arising from a request which had been made of me by the Registrar, I inquired of the parties as to whether that estimate remained accurate. I did so bearing in mind the provisions of s. 19(2) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) (" the Jury Act"), which confers a power to order that up to three additional jurors be selected upon the Court being satisfied of certain matters. The general consensus of the parties at that time was that the original estimate remained accurate. Accordingly, on the basis of that indication, the trial was not one which was likely to be more than three months in duration, and the provisions of s. 19(2) were not engaged. 2. Since that time I have heard an application by each of the accused for a separate trial. Each of those applications has been refused: R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 965. 3. It appears that the matters canvassed in the course of those applications caused the parties, and in particular those representing the accused Rogerson, to reflect upon the likely length of defence case(s) and thus, the likely length of the trial. 4. It is now the position of the accused Rogerson that in light of some of the matters ventilated at the separate trial applications, and in particular in light of the expected length of the defence cases, a more realistic estimate of the likely duration of the trial is three months or more. Mr Waterstreet, who appears for the accused McNamara, does not dissent from that view. The Crown's position, generally speaking, is that the Crown case is likely to take five to six weeks. The Crown submitted that those appearing for the accused are obviously in a better position to determine how long their respective cases will take, and are thus in a better position to assess the duration of the trial. 5. In view of what I am now told, I am satisfied that there is a likelihood that the trial will take more than three months to complete. Accordingly, I make an order pursuant to s 19(2) of the Jury Act that at the time of selecting the jury three additional jurors be selected so as to increase the number to 15. I further order that the Registrar be informed immediately of the order that I have just made.