Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[Kurve]

I've never heard of the prosecution asking for a judge only trial.

I may need to correct my post Crow, l think one charge on Huntingdale is discontinued. It may be consolidation of charges ... l think.

On the Prosecution asking for JO trial. Not heard that happen too many times. There may have been discussion by both parties or the Prosecution thinks the scientific evidence is too complicated. I think the Defence shall agree.

On the charge being dropped. I am surprised, unless again there has been communication. Yet tactically this works for the defence.

Reading the career of Yovich suggests he is well versed in Appeals Law and has started the ball rolling by the Huntingdale charge being dropped. There must have been something , as shellyg noted contamination etc , that the Prosecution sees an appeal based on.

Fascinatiing

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Kurve]

On the Prosecution asking for JO trial. Not heard that happen too many times. There may have been discussion by both parties or the Prosecution thinks the scientific evidence is too complicated. I think the Defence shall agree.

he he If I thought the prosecution wanted a judge only trial, I'd be saying no way give me a jury. Thanks.

 

[Kurve]

Ooooh

Prosecutors told the court that they had filed an application for the trial - expected to begin next year - to be heard by judge alone, without a jury. That application by the prosecution will be heard on November 1.

Mr Edwards’ defence team have until late October to file submissions in relation to the application.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Corboy agreed to set aside May 1 next year as a holding date for the trial to begin.

But Mr Edwards' defence lawyer Paul Yovich indicated he did not think that would be possible.

Mr Yovich also raised concerns on Monday that portions of the state's massive brief of evidence and which has been handed to the defence was being redacted in some cases.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national...ler-faces-court-in-perth-20180917-p5048s.html

 

[Taylor]

I would think a judge only trial would be preferred by the prosecution so they don't offer the defense the option of moving to have the case thrown out after the jury was shown to be bias, save the state the money and have a judge only trial.

 

[petedavo]

Oh, and by the way, the other bloke's name that appeared in the same Court is Spragg.
Not Strapp.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[one eyed spy]

Not necessarily. I think the kimono is useless because 'chain of custody' and 'contamination' issues but that's just my opinion. Carmel might still want the kimono into evidence .... trying to find out exactly which charge has been discontinued.

The indecent assault charge is discontinued. He still faces Break and Enter Dwelling With Intent & Deprivation of Liberty in relation to Huntingdale.
Perhaps they decided allegedly laying on someone was a push for an indecent assault charge if thats all that occurred and deprivation of liberty would cover it.

 

[one eyed spy]

Mr Yovich also raised concerns on Monday that portions of the state's massive brief of evidence and which has been handed to the defence was being redacted in some cases

Due to all the Supression orders that were supposedly granted I'd think.

 

[one eyed spy]

Does anyone know if this Judge will be the Judge that goes with him whether judge or jury trial? Or will this be sorted out today?

Application for Judge alone has to be heard prior to allocation of Judge. They cant know who it will be beforehand. If its granted and they dont like the resulting judge...tough. Cant go back to a jury trial option.

 

[Happy Freo]

Back to SC on 28 September.

How do you plead?

 

[Tundrawolf]

I would think a judge only trial would be preferred by the prosecution so they don't offer the defense the option of moving to have the case thrown out after the jury was shown to be bias, save the state the money and have a judge only trial.

From previous experience I have seen cases where juries have convicted on weak evidence and other cases where they have acquitted when the evidence is either overwhelming or daunting.

It's going to be interesting, anecdotally I believe that if the accused has insurmountable evidence against them, they try their luck with a judge alone.

 

[Happy Freo]

Senior Counsel and team working through 1.5 million pages of evidence and developing a defence strategy.

Money money money...

 

[BlueE]

Due to all the Supression orders that were supposedly granted I'd think.

Were there extra suppression orders granted today that you know of?

If suppression orders are granted is it usual for the defense to have the names suppressed from them as well?

 

[Kurve]

Mr Yovich also raised an early issue about redactions contained within the prosecution material, which Ms Barbagallo said in some cases related to “sensitive material” contained in the prosecution brief.

Judge Michael Corboy, who is the judge who will manage the case towards trial, said he would bring the case back to court later this month to continue the case management.

He also made a succession of suppression orders relating to the non-identity of a series of people likely to be involved in the trial, including potential prosecution witnesses.

https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/c...t-killer-bradley-robert-edwards-ng-b88962911z

 

[Melsy]

I would think a judge only trial would be preferred by the prosecution so they don't offer the defense the option of moving to have the case thrown out after the jury was shown to be bias, save the state the money and have a judge only trial.

It certainly would but its the defense that makes the request and reluctantly agreed by the judge.

 

[Melsy]

he he If I thought the prosecution wanted a judge only trial, I'd be saying no way give me a jury. Thanks.

Only defense can request one with agreeance the judge.
Prosecution are saying they cool with it. Prosecution can apply all they want.

On such an application the court may make the order it is considers it is in the interests of justice to do so but, on an application by the prosecutor, must not do so unless the accused consents.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/4010992c9c56605149a0373f482581f00013cded/$file/tp-992.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiI1dHm6MHdAhUEbbwKHZMQBOMQFjAEegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw32UPYikAUmtsY4Usz022DY

 

[petedavo]

Too good not to share.

Sent from my HTC 2PQ910 using Tapatalk

 

[Melsy]

A great article on judge alone.

November 1, 2017
WA Liberal Democrat MLC Aaron Stonehouse is currently in the process of introducing a Bill into State Parliament that would allow any defendant the right to choose a trial by judge alone. Just what the State Government and the Opposition make of this is to be seen, but from my perspective it’s a change long overdue.

Apart from the fact that judges are trained to be impervious to sympathy and prejudice, they are also required to give written reasons. If they get it wrong there is the prospect of an appeal, which is never the case in relation to cases where a jury makes an error.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/opinion...ne-trials-ng-fd645cc85626966036873251b892a2dd

 

[GreyCrow]

Is there a possibility they get an independent Supreme Court Judge from interstate? I think Brain Martin came in to look over Lloyd Rainey. Given the significant issues regarding police etc is this a consideration?

Or is there enough separation from the police/judiciary to not need it

 

[Melsy]

Today, it was also revealed that pre-trial applications in themselves could take up to two months – illustrating the vast size and scope of the trial
It was also mooted that the potential seven month trial could become an electronic trial – whereby a searchable database of documents is produced for the court.

It has previously been revealed that the material in the case ran to in excess of 1.5 million documents. The court was told this morning the raft evidence spans over 122 files – and even the index of the documents contained in the brief runs to 235 pages, Ms Barbagallo said this morning.

https://www.news.com.au/national/we...s/news-story/914af7ad85209ee835b2d90935467ac6

 

[one eyed spy]

Were there extra suppression orders granted today that you know of?

If suppression orders are granted is it usual for the defense to have the names suppressed from them as well?

Reporting of it seems to indicate there were Suppression Orders granted today but that wouldnt usually invoke redaction of disclosure material unless it wasnt being relied on in court, other laws allowed it, they agreed to it or if the judge granted permission to allow whatever it was to be redacted.
Seeing theres a sexual assault charge relating to a 17yr old, some probably relates to that.
We know nothing about this case.

 

[BlueE]

Mr Yovich also raised an early issue about redactions contained within the prosecution material, which Ms Barbagallo said in some cases related to “sensitive material” contained in the prosecution brief.

Judge Michael Corboy, who is the judge who will manage the case towards trial, said he would bring the case back to court later this month to continue the case management.

He also made a succession of suppression orders relating to the non-identity of a series of people likely to be involved in the trial, including potential prosecution witnesses.

https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/c...t-killer-bradley-robert-edwards-ng-b88962911z

So if I'm understanding this correctly redacted names of potential prosecution witness who have suppression orders, means even the defense doesn't know their names?

I find this unusual. Is there potential witness protection in play?

I agree OES, we know nothing!

 

[Kurve]

Part of the DNA evidentiary material has been redacted.

"In court yesterday, Mr Yovich objected to redactions in the documents handed over by prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo SC, which he said included "part of the DNA evidentiary material". "I don't understand what's missing, and I certainly don't understand why it's missing," Mr Yovich told the court.

The court heard some redactions included the addresses of witnesses or people spoken to by police, and Ms Barbagallo said she was willing to categorise the redactions and the reasons for them. "We have much to say about this because of the sensitive nature of the material," she said."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...e/news-story/0e48512be938cf8f23a6bd3e07c2c4ad

 

[Kurve]

So if I'm understanding this correctly redacted names of potential prosecution witness who have suppression orders, means even the defense doesn't know their names?

Clue might be in the above post. Is it possible the theory that BRE was tracked down in a similar way EAR/ONS was, might be correct? And the 'witnesses' as they're termed in his genealogical line, don't wish to be associated or have it widely known even that they're not who they thought they were, maybe?

 

[craigos]

Clue might be in the above post. Is it possible the theory that BRE was tracked down in a similar way EAR/ONS was, might be correct? And the 'witnesses' as they're termed in his genealogical line, don't wish to be associated or have it widely known even that they're not who they thought they were, maybe?

I'd say that's a possibility or even if it was taken from a family member previously arrested they may wish to have that person remain unidentified.

 

[Kurve]

I'd say that's a possibility or even if it was taken from a family member previously arrested they may wish to have that person remain unidentified.

It might also fall under the Privacy Act. The Australian Law Reform Commission on sensitive information, I'm not sure WA has it covered separately under another Act as some other states do. Still, doubtful the prosecution can get away with this. [101]


6.90 ‘Sensitive information’ also includes health information[98] and genetic information about an individual that is not otherwise health information.[99]

6.91 ‘Sensitive information’ is subject to a higher level of privacy protection than other ‘personal information’ handled by organisations in the following ways:

• ‘sensitive information’ may only be collected with consent, except in specified circumstances. Consent is generally not required to collect ‘personal information’ that is not ‘sensitive information’;[100]
• ‘sensitive information’ must not be used or disclosed for a secondary purpose unless the secondary purpose is directly related to the primary purpose of collection and within the reasonable expectations of the individual;[101]
• ‘sensitive information’ cannot be used for the secondary purpose of direct marketing;[102] and
• ‘sensitive information’ cannot be shared by ‘related bodies corporate’ in the same way that they may share other ‘personal information’.[103]

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/6. The Privacy Act: Some Important Definitions/sensitive-information#_ftn99