DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

1. [1]
   This is an application by the Crown brought under s 590AA of the Criminal Code for an application to transfer the indictment to Bundaberg.

2. [2]
   The application is opposed by the defendant.

The Law

3. [3]
   Section 63 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Q) provides:

“Change of venue

1. (1)
   where an accused person is committed for trial to the District Court in a place other than the district in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, a Supreme Court Judge or a District Court Judge may order that the trial be held in that district and they make all such orders for the remand and custody of the accused person, and for the enlargement of the accused person’s bail, as may be necessary.”

4. [4]
   In R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd. R. 208 it was held that a trial should ordinarily proceed in the district in which the offence charged is alleged to have been committed.  The factors relevant include:

1. (a)
   the cost, expense and inconvenience involved in a change of venue;

2. (b)
   disruption to court schedules and the waste of court resources;

3. (c)
   delay;

4. (d)
   ensuring a fair trial is and is seen to be had;

5. (e)
   the system of administration of justice in Queensland establishes court districts and enables the Crown to select the district in which criminal proceedings will be commenced. (Also see R v Walters [2007] QCA 140).

Submissions

5. [5]
   In this case the accused has been charged with 13 counts. A summary of the locations is as follows:

6. [6]
   The Crown submits as follows:

1. (a)
   The majority of offending occurred in the Bundaberg district although the charges were committed for trial in the District Court at Rockhampton.

2. (b)
   Only one of the Crown witnesses is based in Rockhampton namely the arresting officer.  The others are either interstate or near Bundaberg, Maryborough and the Beenleigh/Logan areas.  Only one witness is to be pre-recorded.

3. (c)
   The court sits in Bundaberg with relative frequency and there is no significant delay or expense to be incurred by the move.

7. [7]
   The defence on the other hand submits as follows:

1. (a)
   It is only in an exceptional case that a change of venue will occur.

2. (b)
   The Defendant lives in Rockhampton and has local legal representation.

3. (c)
   He has limited financial capacity and there would be cost and inconvenience for him to travel to Bundaberg for a trial.

4. (d)
   The two adult complainants reside in the South but may be pre-recorded as special witnesses.

5. (e)
   Because the offences are alleged to have occurred in different jurisdictions the usual rules are less applicable.

Disposition

8. [8]
   The pre-recording has already occurred with respect to one of the complainants on 13 November 2014.

9. [9]
   Taking into account the principles expressed in the cases and also the fact that the majority of offences occurred in the Bundaberg district it is my determination that the matter should be transferred to the Bundaberg district.

10. [10]
    It seems to me the presumption is that offences should usually be tried in the district in which they were committed. There is also only one witness in Rockhampton.

11. [11]
    It seems to me the Defendant will be able to travel to and stay in Bundaberg for his trial. Despite the fact he has no car, there are buses available to Bundaberg.

12. [12]
    Weighing up the circumstances and taking into account the submissions I transfer indictment 232 of 2014 to the Bundaberg District Court pursuant to s 63 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Q).