Legal Research
Cases
R v Adams

R v Adams

Case [2015] NSWSC 1960 18 December 2015

Admissibility of Evidence

Chain of Possession

Mitochondrial DNA Analysis

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1960
Hearing dates: 28 July 2015 - 30 July 2015, 27 August 2015
Decision date: 18 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The evidence about the hair analysis is admissible.
(2) The tendency evidence foreshadowed in the tendency notice of 17 March 2014 is admissible.
(3) The matter is listed in the arraignments list on 12 February 2016 at 10 AM.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – admissibility of tendency evidence in a murder trial – accused not yet arraigned before a jury panel – alleged sexual assault and manual strangulation of the deceased – whether foreshadowed tendency evidence in the Crown case passes the test contained in s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – mitochondrial DNA analysis of a hair said to have been located by police in 1983 in the boot of a motor vehicle owned by the accused – deficiencies in the chain of possession – whether the evidence of the hair analysis passes the test contained in s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 70, 97, 101, 101(2), 137, 192A
Cases Cited: El-Haddad v R [2015] NSWCCA 10
Jones v R [2014] NSWCCA 280
McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184
R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; (2006) 66 NSWLR 228
R v XY [2013] NSWCCA 121; (2013) 84 NSWLR 363
Sokolowskyj v R [2014] NSWCCA 55
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Robert John Adams
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hobart SC (Crown)
P Boulten SC (Accused)
C Parkin (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Accused).

File Number(s): 2013/382738
Publication restriction: Pseudonyms for victims.

Judgment

Introduction

On 1 April 2015, Robert John Adams (the accused) was arraigned in this Court before Johnson J. The indictment averred that, on or about 24 September 1983 in Sydney, he murdered Mary Louise Wallace. The accused pleaded not guilty to that single count.
Thereafter, senior counsel for the accused notified by way of motion two bases upon which he submitted that foreshadowed evidence in the Crown case should be rejected by me. To state them very succinctly, the first was that foreshadowed evidence said by the Crown to show a tendency on the part of the accused did not pass the test contained in s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (the Act). The second was that evidence about mitochondrial DNA analysis of a hair said to have been located by police in October 1983 in the boot of a motor vehicle owned by the accused did not pass the test contained in s 137 of the Act.
The parties (each of whom was represented by senior counsel very experienced in criminal law) jointly submitted that, pursuant to s 192A of the Act, it was appropriate for me to determine those objections (to use a shorthand term) by way of…

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 R v Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1960
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1960
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams, before the NSW Supreme Court, involves a murder trial where the accused is alleged to have committed the sexual assault and manual strangulation of the deceased. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown's foreshadowed tendency evidence was admissible under section 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). This section requires that the probative value of the evidence outweigh any prejudicial effect it might have. The court considered the nature of the evidence, including the similarities between the alleged crime and previous acts, and whether the evidence was necessary to establish a fact in issue.

Further, the court addressed the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA analysis of a hair, which was claimed to have been found in the boot of a vehicle owned by the accused in 1983. The defence argued that the chain of possession was deficient, potentially compromising the integrity of the evidence. The court had to determine if, despite these deficiencies, the evidence met the reliability criteria set out in section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The court examined the circumstances under which the hair was collected, the steps taken to preserve it, and the scientific processes used in its analysis.

The court found that the tendency evidence was admissible as it was relevant to a fact in issue and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The analysis of the hair, despite some deficiencies in the chain of possession, was deemed reliable and therefore admissible. The court concluded that the evidence was of sufficient probative value to be considered in the case.

The final orders of the court allowed the admissibility of both the tendency evidence and the mitochondrial DNA evidence, enabling the case to proceed to trial with these pieces of evidence being presented to the jury.

Orders