Legal Research
Cases
Bartlett v The Queen [No 2]

Bartlett v The Queen [No 2]

Case [2013] WASC 83 15 March 2013

Admissibility of Evidence

Relevance

Breach of Contract

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: BARTLETT -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2013] WASC 83

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 17-18 DECEMBER 2012 & 4 FEBRUARY 2013

DELIVERED : 15 MARCH 2013

FILE NO/S: INS 107 of 2012

BETWEEN: PETER MERVYN BARTLETT
First Applicant
RONALD GEORGE SAYERS
Second Applicant
DEBORAH JEANNE GRACE
Third Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - Relevance - Conspiracy - Alleged similar facts or tendency evidence - Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 31A - Relevance to motive and intention - General factual background - Prejudice

Legislation:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (WA)

Result:

Evidence admissible

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant     :     Mr R Richter QC, Mr D A Staehli SC & Mr M C Boyce
Second Applicant     :     Mr R Richter QC, Mr A E Eyers & Mr M C Boyce
Third Applicant     :     Mr I D Hill QC & Ms N K Kaddeche
Respondent:     Mr P Roberts SC & Mr A L Troy
First intervener by leave     :     Mr M J Ritter SC (responding to summons to produce documents)
Second intervener by leave   :     Ms K A Vernon (responding to summons to produce documents)

Solicitors:

First Applicant     :     Clifford Chance
Second Applicant     :     Clifford Chance
Third Applicant     :     Jackson McDonald
Respondent:     Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
First intervener by leave     :     Australian Crime Commission
Second intervener by leave   :     Clifford Chance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Attorney‑General v Hitchcock (1847) 1 Ex 91; (1847) 154 ER 38
Bartlett v The Queen [2012] WASC 503
Commissioner of Taxation v Hart [2004] HCA 26; (2004) 217 CLR 216
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Peabody [1994] HCA 43; (1994) 181 CLR 359
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Ltd [1996] HCA 34; (1996) 186 CLR 404
Narkle v The Queen [2001] WASCA 31; (2001) 23 WAR 468
Nicholls v The Queen [2005] HCA 1; (2005) 219 CLR 196
R v Funderburk [1990] 1 WLR 587; [1990] 2 All ER 482
R v Seller & McCarthy [2012] NSWSC 934
R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2013] NSWCCA 42
Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; (2001) 206 CLR 650

EM HEENAN J: This directions hearing has addressed applications to set aside certain summonses to produce documents, other incidental directions and, more significantly, applications for rulings upon objections to the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be led at trial by the prosecution.
Before coming to those less contentious matters it is necessary to observe that all these matters were dealt with after my decision in Bartlett v The Queen [2012] WASC 503 had been given on 20 December 2012, by which a temporary but partial stay of these prosecutions was ordered pending the delivery of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal on the appeal to that court from the decision in R v Seller &…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bartlett v The Queen [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Bartlett v The Queen [No 2] [2013] WASC 83
Case: [2013] WASC 83
Decision Date: 15 MARCH 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bartlett was the appellant who faced charges of conspiracy to commit murder, among other offences. The respondent was the Crown, represented by the Queen. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence in the case, specifically whether the evidence was relevant to the appellant's motive and intention as required under section 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA). The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of Western Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of similar facts or tendencies was admissible under section 31A and whether its potential prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court considered the provisions of section 31A, which allows for the admission of evidence of similar facts if it is relevant to a fact in issue and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court examined the evidence in question to determine its relevance to the appellant's motive and intention in the conspiracy charge. It was determined that the evidence was relevant as it demonstrated the appellant's intent to commit murder and the steps taken to achieve this goal. The court also weighed the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value, concluding that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The evidence was therefore deemed admissible under section 31A.

The court found in favour of the Crown, upholding the decision to admit the evidence in question. The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision was affirmed. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant be upheld.

Orders