Citation: R v Hawi & ors (No 22) [2011] NSWSC 1668
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 August 2011
Judge: R A Hulme J
Background
This decision arose during a lengthy criminal trial involving seven accused persons. One accused, referred to here as the accused Padovan, faced two charges in proceedings that had been running before a jury for approximately three months by the time this application was made.
After the Crown closed its case, counsel for Padovan made a no case to answer submission in respect of both charges. The trial judge declined to direct verdicts of acquittal on either charge.
Counsel then made a further application, known as a Prasad application, asking the trial judge to invite the jury to consider returning a verdict of not guilty at that stage, without waiting for the defence case, addresses, or summing-up.
Legal Issues
- Whether the circumstances of the trial made it appropriate for the trial judge to give the jury a Prasad direction, inviting them to return a verdict of not guilty at the close of the Crown case.
Decision
The trial judge outlined the recognised parameters for a Prasad direction. The power to invite an early verdict of not guilty should be exercised sparingly and only where the evidence lacks cogency. The direction is most suited to cases where little explanation of the law is needed, the issues are straightforward, and no detailed review of the evidence is required. A typical example is a case turning solely on the credibility of a single complainant in a matter involving alleged personal or sexual violence.
The trial judge identified several features of the present case that made a Prasad direction inappropriate. The trial involved seven accused, had run for three months, and involved a substantial volume of prosecution evidence. In that context, the jury could not meaningfully assess what evidence the Crown relied upon against Padovan specifically, nor what Padovan's own position was, without a comprehensive analysis that would be impractical to deliver at that stage.
A further complication was that Padovan's case appeared to raise significant issues of self-defence. Properly directing the jury on self-defence would require a careful explanation of the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Crown's obligation to negative self-defence. That level of legal complexity was inconsistent with the kind of simple, unadorned invitation to the jury that a Prasad direction contemplates.
For those reasons, the application was refused.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- A Prasad direction invites a jury to return a verdict of not guilty at the close of the Crown case and should be used sparingly, and only where the evidence lacks cogency.
- The direction is most appropriate where the legal issues are simple, no detailed review of the evidence is needed, and little explanation of the law is required, such as a credibility-based case with a sole complainant.
- Where a trial involves multiple accused, runs for an extended period, and encompasses a large body of evidence, the volume and complexity of the material makes a Prasad invitation impractical and inappropriate.
- Significant issues of self-defence add a further layer of legal complexity that militates against giving a Prasad direction, since the jury would require a proper explanation of the relevant law before reaching any verdict.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that a prior refusal of a no case submission does not preclude a Prasad application, but that the same factual and legal complexity informing the no case ruling can also inform the refusal of the Prasad application.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 418 (self-defence)
Cases:
- R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
- R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191