R v Ahola (No 6) - [2013] NSWSC 703

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703
Hearing dates: 14 May 2013
Decision date: 14 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
The application to discharge the jury is rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for discharge of jury - fingerprint expert witness gave potentially prejudicial evidence - whether high degree of necessity reached - application rejected
Cases Cited: Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; (1996) 186 CLR 427
Qing An v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 53
R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329; (2003) 181 FLR 1
Santo v R [2009] NSWCCA 269
Williams v The Queen [2000] FCA 1868; 119 A Crim R 490
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina
Jouni Risto Ahola
Representation: Counsel:
P Cattini (Regina)
G Scragg (defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Regina)
Legal Aid NSW (defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/333607

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Application has been made by defence counsel for the discharge of the jury. It is founded on the fact that the fingerprint expert, Detective Leading Senior Constable Buffett, said something inappropriate in his evidence-in-chief. The transcript of an extract of his evidence was tendered by defence counsel in support of the application, and became defence exhibit D on the voir dire. The salient portions of that transcript are as follows. At page 7 line 4 the following appears:

"Q. All right now, what did you have to compare those fingerprints that were developed with? [I interpolate to say that the learned Crown Prosecutor at that stage was referring to the crime scene fingerprints.]

"A. At which particular time?

Q. From whom they were placed on those items?

A. The comparison that I made for the purposes of, according to this certificate, I've always done where possible off ones taken at the time of arrest.

Q. Right?

A. But other comparisons are performed but it might be prejudicial if I go into that.

Q. No, no, no, just ones that were taken from the time of arrest of Mr Ahola we're talking about?

A. Yes."

A little later in evidence-in-chief the following exchange occurred commencing at page 8, line 27 of the transcript:

"Q. Okay, continue on?

A. 'On Monday 5 December 2011 I retrieved from the digital image management system images bearing forensic case numbers 1534791, 154392 and 1515308. I also retrieved from the National Automated Fingerprint Identifications System a set of fingerprint impressions in the name of Jouni Risto Ahola which are shown to have been taken on Wednesday 19 October 2011 under charge number H46052312'.

Q. And that's the date of Mr Ahola's arrest in relation to this particular matter?

A. I believe so, yes."

The submission is that the jury would inevitably infer from the first extract that the accused is a person with a criminal record whose fingerprints were held by the New South Wales Police, prior to them being taken from him with regard to this matter. It is that inference that forms the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ahola (No 6) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 703
Decision Date: 14 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ahola (No 6) involved the applicant, Ahola, who was facing a criminal trial. The nature of the dispute was centred on the admissibility of evidence provided by a fingerprint expert witness, which Ahola's legal team contended was potentially prejudicial and could lead to an unfair trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the prejudicial nature of the evidence outweighed the necessity for its admission in the case.

The legal issues the court had to decide upon were whether the high degree of necessity required for the admission of potentially prejudicial evidence was met and if the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. The court needed to assess the potential impact of the evidence on the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the fingerprint evidence presented. The primary consideration was to ensure that the trial remained fair and just, while also evaluating the relevance and reliability of the evidence in question.

In its reasoning, the court found that the fingerprint evidence was indeed prejudicial but determined that the degree of necessity for its admission was sufficiently high. The court held that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. Consequently, the application for the discharge of the jury was rejected, and the evidence was deemed admissible. The court's decision was based on the importance of the evidence in establishing crucial facts and the measures taken to mitigate any prejudicial impact during the trial.

The final orders of the court were that the application for discharge of the jury was dismissed, and the evidence provided by the fingerprint expert witness was allowed to be presented during the trial. The court's decision ensured that the trial would proceed with all relevant evidence being considered, while also taking steps to minimise any potential prejudice to the applicant.

Orders