Prosecution v Accused

2 The proper venue for this trial is Geelong. On 10 September 2024, the defence filed an application for change of venue pursuant to s 192 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ('the Act'), seeking for the accused's trial to be heard in Melbourne. The application is opposed by the prosecution.

3 The matter is currently provisionally listed for trial to begin on 31 March 2025 in Geelong, with an estimated duration of three weeks.

4 In brief, the prosecution's case is as follows. On the night of 14 September 2023, the accused was captured on CCTV footage attending various locations in Geelong and surrounding suburbs. Notably, he was seen attempting to gain access to a number of parked vehicles.

5 Sometime after 10pm, the deceased left his home in Geelong to take the family dog for a walk.

6 Meanwhile, sometime after 11pm the accused gained access to the deceased's vehicle, which was parked outside his residential address, and searched its interior. The accused was interrupted by the deceased, who had returned from his walk to find the accused inside his car. The deceased confronted the accused, who then produced a knife and stabbed the deceased seven times. The deceased collapsed next to the vehicle and the accused took the deceased's car key and wallet.

7 The accused subsequently contacted a friend and made various admissions. The deceased's body was discovered the following morning by his wife.

8 The combined effect of ss 169 and 192 of the Act is that a criminal trial should be heard in the court sitting at the place nearest to where the offence is alleged to have been committed, unless the court orders otherwise because it considers that a fair trial cannot otherwise be had, or that it is appropriate to do so for any other reason.

9 As this Court endorsed in R v Iaria and Panozzo[1] and repeated in several subsequent decisions,[2] each case where a change of venue application is made:

falls to be considered on its own merits and not with any preconceptions, save that a trial should ordinarily proceed in the district in which the offence charged is alleged to have been committed, 'removal being warranted where sufficient cause is shown'.[3]

10 There are also powerful public policy considerations at play that the court must consider - namely, that justice should be seen to be done within the community in which a crime took place.[4]

11 The applicable law was not in dispute between the parties.

12 In advance of the hearing of the application, the court was provided with the following materials, to which I have had regard:

(a) Affidavit of Thomas Edwards in support of application, affirmed 12 March 2025 ('the Edwards affidavit');

(b) Defence written submissions filed 13 March 2025;

(c) Prosecution's submissions in response filed 14 March 2025;

(d) Affidavit of Jill Goddard in response to application, affirmed 14 March 2025.

13 Broadly, the defence relies on the following matters in support of the application:

(a) considerable local media reporting, including reporting of the accused's criminal history;

(b) the extensive outpouring of grief in the local community, including a high-profile GoFundMe campaign;

(c) the Grapsas family's status in the community and connection to significant local institutions;

(d) public expressions of vitriol towards the accused on online forums;

(e) the unsuitability of the courtroom at Geelong, given its layout and limited public seating; and

(f) the fact that the accused is a young offender with cognitive difficulties, and therefore his access to support from his parents is critical and will be easier to facilitate if the trial were to be heard in Melbourne.

14 It is for these reasons that the defence submit the accused cannot receive a fair trial in Geelong, and the trial is more likely to be run efficiently if it is held in Melbourne.

15 The prosecution's ultimate submission in response is that the accused has not demonstrated a sufficient cause to justify a change in venue: there are safeguards in place during the empanelment process to address any issues regarding media reporting or connections to the Grapsas family; the online forum comments are limited in number and insufficient to infer that they reflect a prevalent attitude in the community; and appropriate measures could be adopted to ensure that members of both the deceased and accused's families and the jury are appropriately separated in the courtroom and its immediate vicinity.

16 The prosecution also drew attention to the fact that a change of venue would have a significant impact on a number of civilian prosecution witnesses, as well as family and friends of the deceased who wish to attend the trial in person. They also foreshadowed that they would be applying for a view of the crime scene, which could be more easily facilitated if the trial were heard in Geelong.

17 It was accepted by the defence that moving the trial to Melbourne would cause some inconvenience to a number of civilian and police witnesses, as well as the deceased's loved ones, who are all Geelong-based. However, their submission was that such inconvenience would be relatively minor, given Geelong is only approximately one hour travelling distance to Melbourne.

18 In oral submissions, the defence stressed that the main concerns were the extensive public interest in this matter, and the inadequacy of the Geelong courtroom to cater for a trial with these factual circumstances.

19 In relation to the extensive local media coverage, there was no suggestion by the defence that the reporting of the case thus far has been inaccurate; rather, it was only submitted that the reporting has been extensive. While I consider there has been some media coverage, having reviewed the evidence in support of this submission, I do not consider that the reporting has been out of the ordinary for a case of this kind.

20 The defence accepted that the local media reporting about the accused's criminal history contained in two media articles dated 9 June 2023 and 2 August 2024 was limited. I note that the first article dated 9 June 2023 has some temporal proximity to the events concerning this trial.

21 It is unlikely a jury empanelled at the end of March 2025 will have any recall of these articles. Putting aside the possibility that some of the accused's prior convictions may be before the jury subject to any tendency ruling I make in this case, I do not consider the publication of two articles concerning the accused's limited prior offending provides any real weight to this application.

22 The media reporting of this case has not necessarily gone beyond uncontroversial matters, such as the fact the accused had been charged, court hearing dates and references to the allegations. The articles contain photographs of the deceased and his family, including photographs of his wife who gave birth to their third child after his death.

23 It bears remembering that almost all cases involving an alleged murder have considerable media coverage. There is inevitably public interest in cases of this kind. In such cases, photographs of a deceased person with their family is not an uncommon occurrence. There are built-in protections within the empanelment and trial process that are routinely employed in cases with high media, including jury warnings once the trial is under way.

24 The capacity of juries to put aside any preconceptions and to follow judicial warnings and decide the case only on the evidence is well recognised.

25 Unsurprisingly, the evidence in support of this application demonstrates that there has been some deep feelings in the Geelong area following Mr Grapsas' death. The emotion in the community is said to be demonstrated by the GoFundMe campaign and funds raised for Ms Grapsas and her family. However, I do not consider that the deep feeling or outpouring of grief in this case amounts to any pre-judgment. The defence's concerns about knowledge of this case and deep feelings for the deceased or his family can be dealt with during jury selection. Enquiries can be made by the trial judge about any special knowledge jurors may have attained from media publications online, on television, on radio and any social media.

26 As is the ordinary practice when empanelling a jury, a jury panel would be told to advise the Court as to any information the panel members have been exposed to about the trial participants, beyond passing references in the media. Jurors are required to disclose any further matters that could affect their ability to be impartial.

27 The prosecution provided evidence from the Victorian Electoral Commission that as of 20 February 2025, there are 215,662 potential jurors in the Geelong district. It is worth noting that Geelong is the second largest city in Victoria. Considering the number of persons who are eligible for jury service in the Geelong district, the defence's concerns about the risk of knowledge and pre-judgment of the case in the Geelong area is broad and general, and importantly, can be mitigated.

28 I do not consider that the evidence supports the defence's submission that the deceased's family are well-known beyond the ordinary. The fact that the family has a close connection with a church in Geelong with a large congregation, that the deceased's wife worked at a local Geelong Catholic school and that the deceased's sister was a board member of Geelong Gallery does not, even in combination with other factors, make it likely that the accused will not receive a fair trial.

29 In my view, the combination of careful jury selection, a large jury pool and strong judicial warnings are sufficient to eliminate any actual or perceived risk of unfairness by reason of pre-trial publicity, knowledge of the GoFundMe campaign and any knowledge of the deceased or his family.

30 I reject the defence submission that there is extensive local community anger towards the accused found on public comments on a local Reddit thread.

31 The expressions of 'hate or vitriol' seen in Exhibits TE10 and TE11 to the Edwards affidavit date back one year and reveal a small number of posts and comments. It is too big of a leap to conclude that these comments are reflective of the attitudes of the Geelong community at large.

32 The defence submitted that the courtroom facilities in Geelong are inadequate for a trial of this size. They pointed to the additional difficulty that the jury does not have an entrance and exit to the courtroom separate from the public entrance, increasing the risk of jury interference from the public.

33 It is true that ideally all courtrooms would provide for maximum jury quarantining during the trial. However, as noted by the prosecution, the Victorian County Court sits in Geelong for monthly circuits throughout the year with trials predominantly running efficiently and without incident. I have had the benefit of personally running jury trials in Geelong, and I am aware that measures can be put in place to keep the jury properly quarantined as they moved through the building.

34 I accept that the accused should have his family available in court to support him. Again, measures can be put in place to ensure that the accused's parents are separated from the deceased's family in the courtroom. The courtroom sits 40 people.

35 Ms O'Brien raised the issue of the jury being distracted by the deceased's family's presence in a small courtroom given the proximity of the jury box to the public seating area. It was submitted that the deceased's family's visible grief and emotion would impact upon the jury and potentially distract the jury from the witnesses giving evidence.

36 As I have just said, trials of a sensitive nature are run every day in these courtrooms. Jurors are routinely aware of the family's grief or a victim's grief during a trial. Once again, jurors are adequately warned about putting aside their emotions and biases or any prejudice they may have. These warnings are repeated during the empanelment process, in the judge's opening address and the judge's charge at the end of a trial.

37 Finally, I have had regard to the stress on the deceased's wife and family members if this trial is moved to Melbourne. There are at least five family members who live in Geelong who have indicated that they wish to attend the trial in person. Of those, a number have personal factors that would make travelling to Melbourne particularly difficult and/or inconvenient.

38 This is a case where the circumstances strongly favour the accused's trial being heard in the region where the offence is alleged to have occurred. There are no significant logistical barriers to the trial occurring in Geelong. Any concerns about media attention, community sentiment, and knowledge of the deceased or the Grapsas family can be addressed during jury selection. Jury trials are routinely conducted in the Geelong court without any significant problems, and measures will be put in place to adequately quarantine the jury from the public and any family or friends of the deceased or the accused.

39 On that basis, I am not persuaded such as to enliven the need to change the venue of the trial under s 192 of Act. I am confident a fair trial can be held at Geelong.

40 The application for a change of venue from Geelong to Melbourne is refused.

[1] [2004] VSC 96.

[2] See, for example, Re DC, DE and KS [2024] VSC 676.

[3] R v Iaria and Panozzo [2004] VSC 96, [10].

[4] See DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 148; (2004) 10 VR 355, 356; R v Vjestica [2008] VSCA 47, [2].