find the latest legal job
Corporate and Commercial Partner
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: Adelaide SA 5000
· Full time · Join a leading Adelaide commercial law firm
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Sydney NSW
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
In-house Legal Counsel & Commercial Lawyers
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· Providing lawyers with flexibility and control over when they work, how they work and who they work for.
View details
Legal Inhouse / Lawyer / Company Secretary
Category: Other | Location: Brisbane QLD 4000
· Fantastic Company · Potential to be Part Time / Flexible Work Pattern
View details
Infrastructure Lawyer/SA
Category: Construction Law | Location: Sydney CBD, Inner West & Eastern Suburbs Sydney NSW
· Global elite law firm · Dedicated Infrastructure team
View details
‘Demeaning’ exchange with trial judge insufficient for appeal

‘Demeaning’ exchange with trial judge insufficient for appeal

The Victorian Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal that claimed a trial judge engaged “argumentative dealings”, interrupted during cross-examination and “donned the mantle of the prosecution” by taking over examination-in-chief.

Last week’s appeal decision published portions of trial transcripts, which brought to light a number of prickly exchanges between Victorian County Court Judge Mark Dean and barrister Benjamin Lindner.

The 2015 transcripts show the judge and defence counsel butted heads on a number of occasions. At one pointed moment of frustration, Judge Dean suggested Mr Lindner’s question was “incredibly stupid”.

A witness (and co-accused) who was giving evidence was asked whether or not she had enjoyed prison.

Judge Dean:     You can’t be serious, asking a question like that.

Mr Lindner:       I was very serious.

Judge Dean:     This is not a game. Of course she wouldn’t have liked prison.

Mr Lindner:       I know it’s not a game, Your Honour, and –

Judge Dean:     She did her best in there. I mean, obviously, all you have to do is establish that she got a sentencing discount. Why go and ask her a stupid question?

Mr Lindner:       There’s a good reason for that, and I will leave that for my –

Judge Dean:      You think it’s a good reason.

Mr Lindner:        Yes.

Judge Dean:       I think it’s stupidity.

Mr Lindner:        Your Honour hasn’t heard my final address, and I don’t really see why –

Judge Dean:       This material, the material that you elicit from this witness, is in response to your stupid questions.

Mr Lindner:         Your Honour uses the adjective constantly: ‘stupid’.  I don’t –

Judge Dean:       [Defence counsel], for God’s sake, what do you expect with this witness? Of course she’s going to respond. This is the third time you’ve cross-examined her, and you’ve learnt nothing.

Mr Lindner:        I’ve learnt a lot.

Judge Dean:      It doesn’t look like it.

Tensions escalated on the following day of trial when Judge Dean articulated his frustration with the way counsel was running the defence case: “You are unbelievable. Unbelievable. I will use my description that I used yesterday. You are stupid. I ruled –”.

In its judgement last week, the Court of Appeal noted Judge Dean had expressed dissatisfaction about the way both sides were conducting the trial in the absence of the jury and at an early stage of the proceedings. While the Supreme Court sympathised with the trial judge being “highly unimpressed by forensic decisions […] made by defence counsel” they stressed that “exasperation” should not have been allowed to “descend into verbal abuse”.

“No matter what view a judge has of the manner in which counsel is running the case, to insult and demean counsel, even in the absence of the jury, is not only likely to offend and embarrass counsel but also to risk impeding counsel in conducting the trial and thus risk giving rise to a miscarriage of justice,” the judgment read.

The appeal decision concerned the two related trials of Michael Calvert Cook, who was convicted for two counts of armed robbery in 2012 and sentenced in March 2015.

Mr Cook appealed his conviction on nine grounds. Two of those grounds of appeal made reference to Judge Dean’s interference in the trial, referencing “bias” and repeated interruptions during cross-examination.

The appeal bench found there was “nothing objectionable in a trial judge intervening in order to seek clarification as to the meaning of a question or, perhaps less readily, an answer given by a witness”.

In response to the claim that Judge Dean showed bias and asked questions that bolstered the prosecution case, the court found those matters involved clarifying ambiguity or “matters of minor detail”. The court, however, did note a concern for some other instances where the intervention was seen to be “arguably more significant”.

At other times, where the Supreme Court could not see a clear reason as to why the judge interrupted a cross-examination, or where his interventions were considered unnecessary, those interruptions were not found to have given rise to a miscarriage of justice that would justify the appeal.

The Supreme Court also found Judge Dean’s intervention during the cross-examination of witnesses, in some cases, helped “the jury make sense of the evidence” and “fair running of the trial”. This was particularly so for the cross-examination of co-accused, who the trial judge believed was a difficult witness.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

‘Demeaning’ exchange with trial judge insufficient for appeal
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Nov 24 2017
Demand lifts in 2017/18 for short-term finance to cover crises
Promoted by NWC Finance. The first five months of the 2017-18 financial year have seen unpreceden...
LCA welcomes religious freedom panel
Nov 24 2017
LCA welcomes religious freedom panel
The Law Council of Australia says the establishment of a panel which will examine the human right to...
Law Society launched a new website, legal politics and lawmaking
Nov 24 2017
Law Society launches project to engage young Aussies
The Law Society of NSW has launched a new website to engage young Australians in legal politics and ...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...