Kraaymaat v The Queen - [2010] QDC 159

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kraaymaat v R [2010] QDC 159

PARTIES:

Grant Adam Kraaymaat
(Applicant)
and
The Queen
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

Townsville 140/2009

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATES:

10 November 2009 and 7 December 2009

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.       Application granted in part.

2.       Evidence of applicant as to knowledge of and belief about threats of violence made by the co-accused Smetana is admissible at trial.

3.     Evidence of entries in the criminal history of the co-accused Smetana demonstrating a propensity to violence is admissible at trial to the extent that the applicant has knowledge of or concerning the entries.

4.     Opinion evidence of Dr Caniato as to the applicant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his belief is inadmissible at trial and is excluded.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE – COMPULSION – s.31 (1) (d) Criminal Code (Q) – admissibility of evidence.

EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION – KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF – ADMISSIBILITY - Evidence of the applicant's knowledge of the propensity to violence of co-accused – whether relevant and admissible.

EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION – CRIMINAL HISTORY OF CO-ACCUSED – ADMISSIBILITY - Evidence of entries in criminal history of co-accused - propensity to violence – extent of applicant’s knowledge of facts or circumstances of entries in criminal history - whether relevant and admissible.

EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION - OPINION OF EXPERT AS TO REASONABLENESS OF BELIEF – ADMISSIBILITY - opinion evidence of psychiatrist – applicant’s state of mind – threats of violence to applicant and family by co-accused – evidence of reasonableness of belief – whether relevant and admissible.

LEGISLATION & CASES:

s.31(1)(d) Criminal Code (Q).

R v Beckett [2009] QCA 196; R v Ellem (No 1) (1995) 2 QdR 542; R v Taiapa [2008] QCA 204; Taiapa v The Queen [2009] HCA 53

COUNSEL:

JA Greggery for the applicant
Ms CMA Kelsey for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

The applicant and a co-accused (“Smetana”) are charged with armed robbery in company with personal violence. The offence was committed in Townsville on 18 March 2007. The applicant has pleaded not guilty.

THE APPLICATION

The application is made pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code (Qld) for a pre-trial ruling with respect to the following issues.

1. The admissibility of evidence of the applicant of his knowledge and belief as to Smetana's propensity for violent and threatening conduct.

2. The admissibility of evidence by the applicant of his knowledge of the criminal history of Smetana's concerning a propensity for violent and threatening conduct.

3. The admissibility of evidence by a psychiatrist as to the applicant's vulnerability in the face of threats of violent conduct and his state of mind and personality generally – that is, the reasonableness of his belief - in respect of his commission of the offence.

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 Kraaymaat v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Kraaymaat v The Queen [2010] QDC 159
Case: [2010] QDC 159
Decision Date: 11 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Kraaymaat, sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence that would be presented against him at trial, including evidence of his knowledge of the violent tendencies of his co-accused, Smetana, as well as evidence of Smetana's criminal history. The application was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The legal issues that arose centred on the admissibility of this evidence under the provisions of the Criminal Code, specifically section 31(1)(d), which pertains to the defence of compulsion. The appellant argued that the evidence of his knowledge and belief about Smetana's threats, as well as evidence of Smetana's criminal history, should be excluded as it was not relevant or necessary for the court to consider in determining whether the appellant acted under compulsion.

The court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in cases of compulsion. It was established that for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant to the defence of compulsion and necessary for the court to consider. The court held that evidence of the appellant's knowledge of threats made by Smetana and evidence of Smetana's criminal history, to the extent that the appellant was aware of it, were both relevant and necessary for the court to consider. These pieces of evidence were deemed pertinent in assessing whether the appellant genuinely believed he was acting under compulsion due to threats from Smetana. However, the court ruled that the opinion evidence of Dr Caniato, a psychiatrist, regarding the reasonableness of the appellant's belief was not admissible. The court found that such opinion evidence was not relevant to the question of compulsion as it did not pertain to the facts or circumstances that the appellant was actually aware of or believed.

The court granted the application in part, allowing the evidence of the appellant's knowledge and belief about threats made by Smetana, as well as evidence of Smetana's criminal history, to be admitted at trial. However, the opinion evidence of Dr Caniato was excluded from the trial. The court's decision ensures that the trial will proceed with evidence that is both relevant and necessary for determining the validity of the defence of compulsion, while excluding opinion evidence that does not directly pertain to the appellant's actual knowledge or beliefs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted in part.

2. Evidence of applicant as to knowledge of and belief about threats of violence made by the co-accused Smetana is admissible at trial.

3. Evidence of entries in the criminal history of the co-accused Smetana demonstrating a propensity to violence is admissible at trial to the extent that the applicant has knowledge of or concerning the entries.

4. Opinion evidence of Dr Caniato as to the applicant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his belief is inadmissible at trial and is excluded.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Kraaymaat v R [2010] QDC 159
PARTIES:	Grant Adam Kraaymaat (Applicant) and The Queen (Respondent)
FILE NO:	Townsville 140/2009
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	11 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATES:	10 November 2009 and 7 December 2009
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Application granted in part. 2. Evidence of applicant as to knowledge of and belief about threats of violence made by the co-accused Smetana is admissible at trial. 3. Evidence of entries in the criminal history of the co-accused Smetana demonstrating a propensity to violence is admissible at trial to the extent that the applicant has knowledge of or concerning the entries. 4. Opinion evidence of Dr Caniato as to the applicant's state of mind and the reasonableness of his belief is inadmissible at trial and is excluded.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE – COMPULSION – s.31 (1) (d) Criminal Code (Q) – admissibility of evidence. EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION – KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF – ADMISSIBILITY - Evidence of the applicant's knowledge of the propensity to violence of co-accused – whether relevant and admissible. EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION – CRIMINAL HISTORY OF CO-ACCUSED – ADMISSIBILITY - Evidence of entries in criminal history of co-accused - propensity to violence – extent of applicant’s knowledge of facts or circumstances of entries in criminal history - whether relevant and admissible. EVIDENCE – DEFENCE OF COMPULSION - OPINION OF EXPERT AS TO REASONABLENESS OF BELIEF – ADMISSIBILITY - opinion evidence of psychiatrist – applicant’s state of mind – threats of violence to applicant and family by co-accused – evidence of reasonableness of belief – whether relevant and admissible.
LEGISLATION & CASES:	s.31(1)(d) Criminal Code (Q). R v Beckett [2009] QCA 196; R v Ellem (No 1) (1995) 2 QdR 542; R v Taiapa [2008] QCA 204; Taiapa v The Queen [2009] HCA 53
COUNSEL:	JA Greggery for the applicant Ms CMA Kelsey for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent