R v Ambyrum - [2006] NTSC 45

R v Ambyrum [2006] NTSC 45

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

AMBYRUM, Jason Arron Abraham

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20402161

DELIVERED: 22 June 2006

HEARING DATES: 13-14 June 2006

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Applicant: F. Hardy
Respondent: P. Dwyer

Solicitors:
Applicant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency

Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number: ril0609
Number of pages: 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

R v Ambyrum [2006] NTSC 45
No 20402161

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Applicant

AND:

AMBYRUM, Jason Arron Abraham
Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 22 June 2006)

In the course of the trial I made a ruling regarding the admissibility of some evidence. I indicated I would publish my reasons at the conclusion of the hearing. These are those reasons.

[1] This is a hearing pursuant to s 26L of the Evidence Act. The accused is charged with having caused grievous harm to his partner, Melissa Leigh Stanton on 15 March 2003.

[2] The issue to be resolved relates to the receipt into evidence of admissions said to have been made by the accused to a police officer on the night.

[3] The Crown case is that on 15 March 2003 Ms Stanton was struck on the head with a rock wielded by the accused. She had been at the family home at 6 Wylie Court in Karama where there had been an argument between herself and the accused. She was subsequently located in the front yard of the premises at 3 Wylie Court and she appeared to be suffering from head injuries. The occupants of 3 Wylie Court called the police. The first officers to arrive were Constables Dalrymple and Marinov. Shortly afterwards Constables Hansen and Karamanidis also arrived.

[4] Constable Dalrymple gave evidence that he was the officer in charge of the investigation. He had been informed by the occupants of 3 Wylie Court that Ms Stanton came from 6 Wylie Court. He spoke with Ms Stanton but her responses were unintelligible to him. He and Constable Marinov remained with Ms Stanton and the other two officers went to 6 Wylie Court. He did not give directions to the other constables as to what should occur at that address.

[5] At 6 Wylie Court Constables Hansen and Karamanidis knocked on the door. The door was open. The accused came to the door and was described as being in a distressed state. The officers told him to sit down, which he did. They asked if they could look through the house and received permission to do so. Constable Hansen looked through the house and then returned. Constable Karamanidis then said to Mr Ambyrum words to the effect of: “What is going on here?” or: “What happened?” and Constable Karamandis then gave evidence as to the response, which was:

“He said that she’s…

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 Ambyrum

Details

AGLC: R v Ambyrum [2006] NTSC 45
Case: [2006] NTSC 45
Decision Date: 22 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the accused, Jason Arron Abraham Ambyrum, faced charges for causing grievous harm to his partner, Melissa Leigh Stanton, on 15 March 2003. The primary legal issue before the court was whether admissions made by Ambyrum to a police officer on the night of the incident should be admitted as evidence. The Crown argued for the admissibility of these admissions, while the defence sought their exclusion. The defence's concern was that Ambyrum, who was considered a suspect, was not provided with a caution as required by law at the time the admissions were made.

The court considered whether Ambyrum was indeed a suspect and whether the police officer should have given him a caution as per the Police Administration Act. The evidence showed that while the police officer initially considered Ambyrum a person of interest, he later became a suspect. However, the officer failed to provide the necessary caution before questioning Ambyrum. Despite this oversight, the court found that the failure was not due to wilful disregard of the law but rather an oversight. The court further determined that the admission was voluntary and should be admitted as evidence, as there was no evidence suggesting Ambyrum would not have answered questions had he been cautioned properly. The court concluded that admitting the evidence would not be contrary to the interests of justice.

Ambyrum's admissions to the police officer were deemed admissible, and the court allowed the evidence to be presented to the jury.

Orders