29 have been tried in either Suffolk or Middlesex County. The motion was denied. Article 13 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights grants the Legislature "discretion . . . to establish venue requirements for criminal trials," Opinion of the Justices, 372 Mass. 883, 897 (1977), but acknowledges "that fairness to a defendant normally requires that the defendant not be transported far away for trial but rather be tried where there is access to witnesses and evidence for the defense." Commonwealth v. Brogan, 415 Mass. 169, 174 (1993). Since the statute at issue, G. L. c. 119, § 51A (c), does not include a venue provision, the question of venue here "is one of common law within any limitation that art. 13 may impose." Brogan, supra at 173. The defendant has made no showing that the trial in Essex County "was in any way prejudicial to [his] defences on the merits, or otherwise disadvantageous to [him]." Libby, 358 Mass. 617, 620 n.2 (1971). crime is unrelated to Essex County: Commonwealth v. It is not as though the William lived in Essex County, as did the victims, and the child abuse investigation became fully manifested there. William has not demonstrated that he was "unduly hampered by being required to appear" in