R v Bennetts

Case [2017] QSC 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bennetts [2017] QSC 195 ; [2017] QSCPR 5

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
Brenden Jacob BENNETTS

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

No 1432 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Rulings

ORIGINATING COURT:

  Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 September 2017

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDERS:

1.   The application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search on 13 August 2015 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – NATURE OF DISCRETION – OTHER PARTICULAR MATTERS – where the applicant is charged with one count of murder and one count of interfering with a corpse – where the applicant’s plea to manslaughter was not accepted by the Crown in satisfaction of the indictment – where one day before the applicant caused the death of the deceased the applicant entered the search “best way to dispose of a body” into YouTube – where the results of the search, if any, are not known – where applications to exclude the evidence of the search on the basis of relevance and prejudice were refused – where the applicant seeks the exclusion of the evidence on the basis of unfairness pursuant to the common law residual discretion to exclude admissible evidence – whether the common law residual discretion to exclude is enlivened – whether the evidence should be excluded

Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
R v Falzon [1990] 2 Qd R 436
Police v Dunstall [2015] HCA 26
R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24
R v Grimes [2013] 1 Qd R 351
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
V A Loury QC for the Crown

SOLICITORS:

Mulcahy Ryan for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

This application

  1. Counsel for the defendant has made a further application for the exclusion of the evidence of YouTube searches which reveal that on 13 August 2015 at 12.19 pm the defendant entered a search query for “best way to dispose of a body”. The results of the search, if any, are not known.

  2. On 7 September 2017 I refused the defendant’s application to exclude that evidence. I was satisfied that the evidence was relevant to a fact in issue in the trial because if accepted it could rationally affect the assessment by the jury of the probability of a fact in issue. I considered that the question of intent was still in issue in the trial despite the defendant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter and interfering with a corpse.  I was also satisfied that the evidence was not of slight probative value but rather was potentially of significant probative value given it could rationally affect the assessment of the jury of the issue of intent, because the search query was made the day before the death of the deceased and in circumstances where it took two weeks for her body…

Continue reading R v Bennetts

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bennetts [2017] QSC 195
Case
[2017] QSC 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Bennetts, the appellant, Bennetts, stands charged with one count of murder and one count of interfering with a corpse. The case has reached the court where the admissibility of certain evidence has become a central issue. Specifically, Bennetts seeks the exclusion of evidence that, one day prior to the alleged murder, he conducted a YouTube search for the term “best way to dispose of a body”. The Crown opposes the application, arguing that the evidence is relevant and prejudicial, and should not be excluded.

The court was tasked with determining whether the common law residual discretion to exclude admissible evidence applies in this instance. Bennetts contends that the admission of the evidence would be unfair, despite the refusal of previous applications to exclude it on the grounds of relevance and prejudice. The court had to consider the nature of the discretion to exclude evidence, which encompasses considerations of fairness and the overarching purpose of ensuring a just trial. The court examined whether the evidence of the search, irrespective of its content, could unfairly prejudice the appellant in the eyes of the jury.

The court concluded that the common law residual discretion to exclude evidence was not engaged. It found that the evidence was relevant and probative of Bennetts' intent, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. The court also noted that Bennetts had not demonstrated how the admission of the evidence would result in an unfair trial, particularly given that the content of the YouTube search was not known and therefore could not be prejudicial beyond its inherent relevance. Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search was refused.

The court’s order is that the application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search on 13 August 2015 is denied. This decision allows the evidence to be presented to the jury as part of the Crown’s case, subject to any other legal considerations that may arise during the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search on 13 August 2015 is refused.

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.