R v Clarence Williams (CR 54 of 2019) [2020] TCASC 8 (5 June 2020)

Flynote

Criminal law

Case summary

Application refused.  Although it was conceded that there was no good reason for non-compliance, the time limit in s 59(1) was directory not mandatory so the Court still had a discretion to extend time. Where there was no good reason for non-compliance the Court would be unlikely to grant an extension unless injustice would be caused. The Court would therefore first look at the merits. The Court did not readily accept that a police officer could speak as an authority to the fact that a juror would be biased unless they had been informed of the same.  The newspaper article did not provide any insurmountable obstacles for a fair trial.  Balancing all the circumstances including those set out in s 58(3) and the fact that the trial would not be heard for some time especially after the delays caused by the Covid-19 virus, a trial by judge alone was not in the interests of justice, so the application would be refused and the trial would proceed with a judge and jury. 

---