R v Arnott (Ruling no 3) - [2006] VSC 524

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1510 of 2005

THE QUEEN

RUSSELL LAURENCE ARNOTT

---

JUDGE:	Williams J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	22 December 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Arnott (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 524

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Ruling as to proposed content of prosecution final address – Whether prosecutor should be permitted to ask jury to draw inference from evidence of accused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr J Desmond	Doogue & O’Brien

HER HONOUR:

Russell Laurence Arnott faces a charge that he murdered Daniel Zigante at Altona North on 3 March 1985. The trial has reached the stage at which counsel for the prosecution is about to commence his address. Counsel for the defence has sought a ruling as to whether counsel for the prosecution should be permitted to make certain submissions to the jury in the course of his address. Those submissions relate to the issue as to the source of Mr Arnott’s knowledge that the bullet which killed Mr Zigante was a .22 calibre long rifle bullet.

The prosecutor proposes to ask the jury to conclude that Mr Arnott shot Mr Zigante because he knew details relating to the killing which were not in the public domain. In particular, he proposes to rely upon the evidence from Mr Arnott under cross examination that a man named Mark, whom he met in about 1987,[1] informed him that a 22 was used in the shooting of Mr Zigante. Mr Arnott said, under cross-examination, that he did not know whether he had heard that fact elsewhere and that it was quite possible that he may have heard the information somewhere else, before or after hearing it from Mark.[2] Mr Arnott subsequently said that he left Footscray TAFE shortly after that and did not see Mark again.[3] Mr Arnott said that the only thing he could remember Mark saying was that it was a 22 used in the Zigante killing.[4] Mr Arnott repeated that he could not tell senior counsel for the prosecution if that was the only place he had heard that said.[5]
[1]T1382 lines 14 – 17.
[2]T1382 lines 29 – T1383 line 2.
[3]T1383 lines 18 – 20.
[4]T1384 lines 17 – 19.
[5]T1384 lines 20 – 21.

Mr Arnott was subsequently asked whether Mark told him about the weapon that had been used to kill the security guard. He said: “No, not to his knowledge.” The following exchange then occurred during the cross examination:

Question:Did he tell you the type of weapon that the bullet had been fired from?
Answer:Not that I know of.

Question:Did he tell you anything else about the ammunition that was used?
Answer:The type of weapon? Yeah, a 22. That’s what a 22 is, it’s a type of weapon. That’s the type of projectile, the bullet, and it goes…

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 Arnott (Ruling no 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Arnott (Ruling no 3) [2006] VSC 524
Case: [2006] VSC 524
Decision Date: 22 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Arnott, ruling number three, was heard before the court where the prosecution sought to establish a ruling regarding the content of the final address to the jury. The accused, Arnott, faced a charge of murder. The central issue was whether the prosecutor should be allowed to request the jury to infer certain facts from the evidence presented.

The court had to consider the legal boundaries within which a prosecutor could operate during their final address. Specifically, the court needed to decide if it was appropriate for the prosecutor to ask the jury to draw inferences from the evidence presented. This included whether such requests could be made without presenting additional evidence or argument to support the inferences.

The court held that the prosecutor was not permitted to ask the jury to draw inferences from the evidence. The ruling was based on the principle that inferences should be drawn by the jury from the evidence presented, rather than being prompted by the prosecutor. The court reasoned that allowing the prosecutor to suggest specific inferences could unduly influence the jury and undermine the impartiality of the trial. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear separation between the roles of the prosecutor and the jury in the judicial process. The final ruling ensured that the prosecution's final address would remain within the appropriate legal bounds, preserving the integrity of the trial.

Orders