DPP v Pirimona [2025] VCC 1818 | Case summary

County Court of Victoria|2025-12-10|Before: Lush J

This is an application on behalf of the accused Mr Pirimona for a change of venue from the sittings of the County Court at Latrobe Valley to its sittings in Melbourne. The application is not opposed by the prosecution.
The accused is charged on the Indictment with five charges relating to: Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence - Commercial Quantity in Morwell on 22 September 2022; two charges of Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence at the same time and place; Possession of a Drug of Dependence at the same time and place and Knowingly Dealing with the Proceeds of Crime at the same time and place.
Latrobe Valley is a circuit city with a population of 80,000 people situated 150km from Melbourne. Morwell is approximately 3km from Latrobe Valley.
On an application for a change of venue based as here on matters of asserted local prejudice or prejudgment, the test is that a trial will be heard locally unless there is a real risk that the accused might not receive, or be seen to receive, a fair trial locally.[1]
The defence has made an application for a change of venue due to the likelihood of at least some members of a local jury pool knowing the accused as being high.[2]
The Court became alive to this when the accused indicated he had a previous personal relationship some years ago with an empanelled juror. Despite the juror denying any relationship, the jury was ultimately discharged on this basis.
Pursuant to s192 of the ('CPA'), a court may order that the proceedings be heard at any other place it considers appropriate if a fair trial cannot otherwise be had, or it is appropriate to do so for any other reason.

In my opinion, the starting point of a case such as this is that it is a matter of public interest and public policy that a trial should be held in the locality and (in this case it is the same thing) in the community area in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.

... so that justice will be seen to be done by those who are interested in seeing it and so that no feeling can arise that justice is done in a distant place and community.[5]

There are powerful reasons of public policy why the venue of offence should be the venue of trial. The local community is the community in which the alleged crime took place; it is concerned to have the law administered within it; and to remove a circuit trial to Melbourne can lead the vacated community to feel disenfranchised, marginalised or alienated. All this is common experience. This basal requirement should not be watered down by mere administrative convenience.[6]

Relevant considerations on a change of venue application include:

(a) the need to ensure a fair trial;

(b) the need to ensure the appearance of a fair trial;

(c) ability to select an impartial jury that is fairly representative of the local community;

(d) any cost, expense, inconvenience or emotional burden to parties or witnesses;

(e) disruption to court schedules;

(f) waste of court resources;

(g) delay that would be caused by a change of venue;

(h) the extent of any local pre-trial publicity that may undermine a fair trial; and

(i) the general desirability of holding a trial in the district where the offence was committed.[7]

I consider that a change of venue is not necessary to ensure that the abovementioned considerations are met. The necessity of an impartial jury that is fairly representative of the local community is important to ensure that the accused is tried by his peers in his local community. There is no particular factual circumstance or notoriety which attaches itself to this case that suggests it is known in the community.
There is no evidence that the accused is very well known or prominent in the community. It was suggested that his racial mix of being both Aboriginal and Māori with a unique name made him more likely to be known. In modern Australia, in a location of this size and proximate to one of the largest multicultural and cosmopolitan cities, I do not think there is much force in this submission.
Furthermore, if this case does not proceed in the January 2026 circuit in Latrobe Valley, it will be listed in Melbourne in July 2026. Such delay works against a fair trial where recollections are in issue.
I refuse the application for removal of the proceedings from the local jurisdiction and order that the matter be listed in the Latrobe Valley circuit commencing 19 January 2026.

[1] Teng v Sing (1986) 30 A Crim R 203 at 206 per Gallop J and Webb v Hay (1992) 64

[2] Defence Application to change venue dated 7 December 2025 at paragraph [14]

[3] R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd R 208; R v Iaria [2004] VSC 96; (2004) 9 VR 425 ('Iaria'); R v Ratten (Supreme Court of Victoria,

4 August 1970); DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 148; (2004) 10 VR 355 ('Bennett'); Gram v The Queen [2010] VSC 277 ('Gram')

[5] In the Victorian Trial Manual, 2nd ed, (2002) at p 802 that citation is erroneously recorded as

"in a distant place and in a disinterested community"

[6] DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 148; (2004) 10 VR 355 paragraph [6]

[7] Iaria; R v Yanner [1998] 2 Qd R 208; Bennett; DPP v Towle [2007] VSC 551; Gram

DPP v Pirimona

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)