R v Anderson - [2015] NSWSC 1474

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anderson [2015] NSWSC 1474
Hearing dates: 25, 26, 27 May 2015
Date of orders: 27 May 2015
Decision date: 27 May 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Tendency evidence excluded. Evidence of Nardia Simms Green admitted. Evidence of Aaron Timbery admitted.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial procedure – trial rulings – tendency evidence – relationship evidence – admissibility of evidence where maker does not recall the making of statement – where maker heavily intoxicated by drugs – whether admissions contained in evidence would be unfair to accused – whether probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 32, 38, 66, 90, 97, 100, 101, 192
Cases Cited: Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2000] FCA 1886; 106 FCR 51
R v Harker [2004] NSWCCA 427
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher Anderson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Lydiard (Crown)
C Waterstreet (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers Inc (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/235869
Publication restriction: Not to be published until after re-trial

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Christopher Anderson is being tried by jury for the murder of Allira Green. During the course of the trial, I have given a number of rulings, reserving my reasons so as not to detain the jury. This judgment states my reasons for giving those rulings.

Tendency evidence

The Crown case is that the accused and the deceased were in a relationship and that the deceased was some 20 weeks pregnant as at the date of her death. Their relationship was volatile. There had been two previous occasions when the police had been called following verbal altercations. On the night of her death, the deceased was at the home of a friend, Louise Bodeker. A third woman, Allira Holt, had arrived to collect the deceased. The accused arrived after Allira Holt. The deceased and Allira Holt yelled at him to go away. According to the Crown case, the accused pushed his way into the unit and pushed all three girls over. Louise Bodeker says at that point the deceased went to the kitchen, took a large kitchen knife and ran at the accused, holding the knife above her head. Ms Bodeker saw the accused grab the deceased’s hand that was holding the knife. Neither Ms Bodeker nor Ms Holt saw what happened with the knife after that point. The deceased fell to the floor, having suffered a single fatal stab wound which had penetrated her lungs and heart. DNA of the accused was found on the handle of the knife.
The trial was originally listed for hearing commencing on 18 May 2015. By notice dated 10 May 2015, the Crown gave notice of its intention to adduce evidence that the accused has a tendency to use serious physical violence towards his female partners. The notice attached a statement taken from a previous girlfriend of the accused. The statement was…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2015] NSWSC 1474
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1474
Decision Date: 27 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anderson, the defendant was charged with an offence arising out of a tragic incident. The dispute involved the admissibility of certain evidence that the Crown sought to adduce, which the defence argued would unfairly prejudice the accused. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court centred on whether evidence of the accused's prior admissions and the relationship between the accused and the deceased were admissible. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the accused.

The court considered the nature of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding its creation. The evidence in question was a statement made by the accused, who was heavily intoxicated by drugs at the time. The accused did not recall making the statement, raising concerns about the reliability and potential unfairness of its admission. The court also considered the relationship between the accused and the deceased, assessing whether this evidence would be relevant and whether its admission would unfairly prejudice the accused. The court balanced the probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice, applying the principles set out in the relevant case law.

After careful consideration, the court found that the probative value of the evidence did not sufficiently outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused. The court was particularly concerned about the reliability of the statement given the accused's level of intoxication and the lack of recollection of its making. Additionally, the court found that the relationship evidence, while potentially relevant, did not meet the threshold for admissibility under the criteria established in the case law. Therefore, the court ruled that the evidence should be excluded. As a result, the court made orders excluding the contested evidence from the trial.

Orders