Legal Research
Cases
R v Adams (No 6)

R v Adams (No 6)

Case [2016] NSWSC 1565 4 November 2016

Criminal Liability

Causation

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Adams (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1565
Hearing dates: 26 September 2016 – 26 October 2016
Decision date: 04 November 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Verdict of guilty of murder

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – alleged offence occurred in 1983 – felony murder – circumstantial case – tendency evidence – whether the accused had a tendency to rape and choke women – discussion of mitochondrial DNA and hair analysis – verdict of guilty of murder
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 17A, 18, 37, 61D, 61D(1), Pt 1A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 79, 165(1)(a), 165B
Cases Cited: Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; [2001] HCA 25
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
DJS v R [2010] NSWCCA 200
DJV v R [2008] NSWCCA 272
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28; [1971] HCA 55
Groundstroem v R [2013] NSWCCA 237
HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 224; [2008] HCA 16
Lane v R (2013) 241 A Crim R 321; [2013] NSWCCA 317
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66
Penza and Di Maria v R [2013] NSWCCA 21
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44
R v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1960
R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
R v Bishop (1888) 88 4 WN (NSW) 107
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620; [2000] HCA 3
Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205; [1967] HCA 2
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013; [2016] HCA 35
The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Robert John Adams
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hobart SC (Crown)
P Lange with C Parkin (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/382738

Judgment

Introduction

On 27 September 2016, Robert John Adams (the accused) was arraigned before me on an indictment containing a single count. It averred that, on 24 September 1983, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Mary Louise Wallace (the deceased).
The accused entered a plea of not guilty to that count. No jury was empanelled, because I had previously ordered that the trial proceed by judge alone: see my judgment in R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359.
By the end of the openings of counsel, it was clear that the Crown case was a circumstantial one. It alleged that the accused committed the offence charged on the basis of the doctrine 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 (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Adams (No 6) [2016] NSWSC 1565
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1565
Decision Date: 04 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams (No 6) involved a long-standing criminal dispute, where the accused was charged with the murder of a woman that allegedly occurred in 1983. The trial was conducted by a judge alone, without a jury. The key legal issues the court had to address were whether the accused had a tendency to commit crimes involving the rape and choking of women, and if the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the analysis of mitochondrial DNA and hair samples.

The court had to consider the admissibility and weight of the tendency evidence, which was crucial in establishing a link between the accused and the crime. The prosecution argued that the accused's past criminal conduct demonstrated a propensity to commit the crime in question. The defence contested the reliability of the evidence, particularly the mitochondrial DNA and hair analysis, questioning whether it could conclusively establish the accused's guilt. The court also had to determine if the evidence, when considered in its entirety, supported the verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

After careful consideration of the evidence presented, the court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, when combined with the tendency evidence, was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the accused had a propensity to commit crimes involving the rape and choking of women, and that this evidence, along with the mitochondrial DNA and hair analysis, provided a compelling case against the accused. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty of the murder of the victim.

Orders