R v Barrett - [2005] VSC 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1448 of 2004

THE QUEEN

ROBERT CLIFFORD BARRETT

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	20 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Barrett (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 31

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Leckie SC with	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for
Mr J Kelly	Public Prosecutions
For the Defence	Ms C Randazzo SC	Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:

On 14 February 2005 I heard argument in the absence of the jury on two foreshadowed applications by Ms Randazzo SC on behalf of the accused. The first application was that I should question the prosecutor in order to discover his reasons for not calling Mrs Florence Barrett and Mr Robert Barrett senior, the accused’s parents, as witnesses and, if he persisted in that position, that I should call those witnesses myself. The second application was that I should direct the jury to acquit on the basis that the accused has no case to answer.
Argument was heard during the morning of 14 February as it had been anticipated that the prosecution would have called all the evidence it intended to call by then. As Ms Randazzo wished to have two prosecution witnesses recalled, that did not transpire to be the case. The course I adopted was to hear submissions on these matters in the morning. After lunch the Crown recalled the two witnesses, as Ms Randazzo had requested. In the absence of the jury I then dealt with the application concerning the accused’s parents. Ms Randazzo indicated she had no submissions to add to those made in the morning. I then ruled that I would not take any step at that stage in relation to Mr and Mrs Barrett, either by further enquiry of the prosecutor or by calling them myself, and said I would give reasons later. The Crown case was then closed before the jury. In the absence of the jury, Ms Randazzo then supplemented the no case submissions she had made in the morning. I also ruled against that application and I again indicated that I would give reasons later.
Application concerning accused’s parents
In relation to the application concerning the accused’s parents, Ms Randazzo firstly outlined the potential relevance of their evidence. In essence, the submission was that it was likely they could give relevant evidence of the events during the days immediately prior to the deceased’s death. In particular, Ms Randazzo referred to the circumstances in which the deceased suffered the subdural haematoma, the deceased’s refusal to have an ambulance called, and the accused’s demeanour over the days in question. Ms Randazzo also said that Mrs Barrett might have relevant evidence to give concerning the accused’s mental history and the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the accused. Ms Randazzo submitted that the prosecutor must call these witnesses if he is to fulfil his duty to conduct the case…

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 Barrett

Details

AGLC: R v Barrett [2005] VSC 31
Case: [2005] VSC 31
Decision Date: 20 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Barrett involved the prosecution of Robert Clifford Barrett for the alleged murder of his mother. The court, presided over by Whelan J, heard two key applications made by the defence. The first application sought the court's intervention in questioning the prosecutor about his decision not to call the accused's parents as witnesses, and alternatively, for the court to call the parents itself. The second application was for the court to direct an acquittal on the basis that the accused had no case to answer.

The court considered the potential relevance of the parents' testimony, particularly regarding the events leading up to the deceased's death, and the accused's mental history. However, the prosecutor argued that both parents were considered suspects in a potential concealment offence and had not provided statements. The court found that while the parents' evidence could be relevant, it did not meet the exceptional circumstances required for the court to intervene in the prosecutor's decision-making. Similarly, the court dismissed the no case submission, finding that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the accused was responsible for the deceased's death, despite alternative hypotheses presented by the defence.

Ultimately, the court ruled against both defence applications. The judge emphasised that the decision to call witnesses lies with the prosecutor and that the court would not intervene unless the circumstances were exceptionally compelling. The court also found that the evidence, though circumstantial, was enough to allow a jury to infer that the accused caused the death of the deceased. The no case submission was rejected as the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders