Legal Research
Cases
Headland (a pseudonym) v The King

Headland (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2023] VSCA 174 3 August 2023

Interlocutory Orders

Admissibility of Evidence

Abuse of Process

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0171

RENEE HEADLAND (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]So as to prevent any risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, these reasons for judgment have been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	EMERTON P, PRIEST and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 August 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 174
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Headland] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 22 November 2022, Judge Ellis)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Interlocutory appeal – Admissions – Grounds for exclusion – Record of interview with police – Applicant an indigenous woman with a history of domestic abuse – Whether truth of admissions adversely affected by circumstances – Whether circumstances made use of admissions unfair to applicant – Leave to appeal refused – Evidence Act 2008, ss 85 and 90.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr D McGlone
Respondent:		Mr L McAuliffe
Solicitors
Applicant:	Leanne Warren & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
PRIEST JA
KENNEDY JA:

Introduction

The applicant faces trial in the County Court for an aggravated burglary allegedly committed on 30 September 2018.
Prior to the empanelment of a jury, relying on ss 85(2) and 90 of the Evidence Act 2008 (‘the Act’), the applicant’s counsel sought the exclusion from evidence of admissions contained in a record of interview conducted with the applicant by police on 2 October 2018.
By a ruling dated 22 November 2022 (‘the ruling’ or ‘the interlocutory decision’), the judge refused to exclude the admissions in the record of interview.
Pursuant to certification by the trial judge under s 295(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’) given the same day, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the interlocutory decision on a ground[2] that contends that the trial judge erred in —
… failing to take into account a relevant consideration when exercising her discretion under sections 85 and 90 of [the Act], namely, that the Applicant is an Aboriginal woman who has been a victim of domestic abuse.
[2]The applicant abandoned a second ground, that the trial judge ‘erred in the exercise of her discretion in that she applied the wrong test in determining the admissibility of the record of interview in accordance with section 85’.
In our view, the ground is without substance. For the reasons that follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

The prosecution case

As set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening,[3] the prosecution case is that in the evening of 30 September 2018, two armed men, Ken Salmi (‘Salmi’) and Chris Binder (‘Binder’), forced their way into the home of Anthony Grima (‘Grima’) in Sunshine. Salmi is the applicant’s former partner. Caitlyn Salmi is his niece. Binder is Caitlyn Salmi’s former partner.
[3]See CPA, s 182.
The prosecution alleges that the applicant was complicit in the aggravated burglary committed by…

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 Headland (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Headland (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 174
Case: [2023] VSCA 174
Decision Date: 3 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, referred to as Headland, sought leave to appeal against the decision of a lower court which allowed the admission of certain statements she made during an interview with police. The case before the court involved serious criminal charges against Headland, and the crux of the dispute was the admissibility of statements she made during an interview in the context of her history of domestic abuse. The court had to decide whether the truth of the admissions was adversely affected by the circumstances in which they were made, and whether the use of these admissions in the trial was unfair to Headland. The court's consideration was heavily influenced by the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008, specifically sections 85 and 90, which pertain to the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances that may render it unfair.

The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the admissions made by Headland were tainted by the circumstances of their procurement, and if so, whether this taint rendered the use of such admissions unfair. The applicant argued that her history of domestic abuse and the context of the police interview should be considered when assessing the fairness of using the admissions as evidence. The court needed to weigh the potential prejudice to Headland against the probative value of the admissions. It was also necessary to determine whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in making its decision.

In its decision, the court found that the admissions were relevant and probative of the issues in the case, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Headland. The court held that the lower court had correctly applied the law in allowing the admissions as evidence. The court emphasised that the relevant statutory provisions require a rigorous assessment of the circumstances surrounding the making of admissions but do not automatically lead to the exclusion of such evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, as the court was not satisfied that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the fairness of using the admissions. The court concluded that the admissions were appropriately considered in the context of the whole of the evidence and that their use did not render the trial unfair to Headland.

Orders