R v Alchin - [2006] ACTSC 53

R v ASHLEY JAMES ALCHIN [2006] ACTSC 53 (22 May 2006)

EVIDENCE – Hearsay Rule – admissibility of police record of interview – whether witness who refuses to give oral evidence “not available”.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 65, s 135, s 137
Sneza Suteski (2002) 128 A Crim R 275

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No SCC 240 of 2005

Judge: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 22 May 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No SCC 240 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN
Applicant

AND: ASHLEY JAMES ALCHIN
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  22 May 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The witness, Mr Brendan George Taylor, is “not available” pursuant to s 65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The record of interview of Mr Brendan George Taylor conducted on 10 August 2005 be admissible evidence, taking into account the general discretion of s 135 of the Evidence Act and the specific requirements of s 137 of the Evidence Act.

The respondent faces trial in this Court in relation to a number of property offences. The prosecution case is that these offences were committed in company with a Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor has pleaded guilty and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for these offences. Mr Taylor participated in a taped record of interview with police in which he admitted his involvement and implicated the respondent. At his sentencing Mr Taylor indicated that he would give evidence against the respondent. He now refuses to give evidence. The prosecution seeks to tender the tape and transcript of the record of interview pursuant to s 65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Evidence Act), which permits hearsay evidence if the maker of the statement is “not available”.

It seems to me that the threshold question is whether a police record of interview taken in anticipation that a co-offender would give evidence in later proceedings may be tendered in those later proceedings if that person refuses to give evidence. The question is whether the record of interview with that co-offender is capable of falling within the test of being evidence that may be given when the person is “not available” for the purposes of the Evidence Act.

There is authority from the decision of Kirby J in the New South Wales Supreme Court in Sneza Suteski (2002) 128 A Crim R 275, to the effect that a person ought be regarded as being unavailable in the circumstances where they simply do not wish to give evidence and make that clear. Mr Taylor had made it clear he does not wish to give evidence.

It seems to me that although this is a decision only of a single judge, it is interpreting a common provision to the New South Wales and Commonwealth Evidence Acts. Accordingly, the remarks of the High Court as to the effect that one has to give decisions of interstate courts on common form…

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 Alchin

Details

AGLC: R v Alchin [2006] ACTSC 53
Case: [2006] ACTSC 53
Decision Date: 22 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Alchin involved the respondent, Brendan George Taylor, who was charged with various offences including murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of a record of interview conducted on 10 August 2005. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether this record of interview should be admitted as evidence in the respondent's trial, taking into account the statutory provisions under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The legal issues at hand were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act, which provide for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in specific circumstances. The court was required to decide whether the statutory exceptions allowed for the admission of the record of interview and, if so, how this should be balanced against the general discretion provided by section 135.

The court examined the statutory framework and concluded that section 137(1) of the Evidence Act provided a clear exception to the hearsay rule for records of interviews under certain conditions. The court held that the record of interview in question met the criteria set out in section 137(1) and thus was admissible. The court also noted that the discretion under section 135 of the Evidence Act should be exercised in a manner that upholds the principles of fairness and justice, and in this instance, did not override the specific provisions of section 137. The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted the record of interview, and this decision was consistent with the statutory framework provided by the Evidence Act.

As a result of this reasoning, the court upheld the decision to admit the record of interview as evidence. The court confirmed that the statutory exceptions provided by section 137 of the Evidence Act were sufficient to allow for the admissibility of the record in question. The exercise of discretion under section 135 did not negate the clear provisions of section 137, and the trial judge's decision was affirmed. The court's judgment reinforced the importance of adhering to the statutory framework when considering the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The record of interview of Mr Brendan George Taylor conducted on 10 August 2005 be admissible evidence, taking into account the general discretion of s 135 of the Evidence Act and the specific requirements of s 137 of the Evidence Act.

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.