R v Bennetts - [2017] QSC 194

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bennetts [2017] QSC 194 ; [2017] QSCPR 4

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:

7 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2017

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDERS:

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

2.   The Application by the Crown to re-open the ruling on 31 August 2017 in relation to the evidence of the Facebook messages between the defendant and Ms Gilmore on 13 August 2015 is granted.

3.   The Facebook messages the subject of the ruling on 31 August 2017 are admitted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – 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 the applicant applies to have the evidence of the search excluded on the basis of relevance – whether the evidence is relevant – whether the evidence should be excluded

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – 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 the applicant applies to have the evidence excluded on the basis of its prejudicial effect – whether the prejudice of the evidence outweighs its probative value – whether the evidence should be excluded

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – 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 Crown submits that the YouTube search contextualises evidence previously ruled to be inadmissible – where the Crown applies pursuant to s 590AA(3) of the Criminal Code to re-open the ruling for special reason – whether a special reason exists – whether the…

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 Bennetts

Details

AGLC: R v Bennetts [2017] QSC 194
Case: [2017] QSC 194
Decision Date: 7 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bennetts involved the applicant, who was charged with one count of murder and one count of interfering with a corpse. The applicant had previously entered a plea to manslaughter, which was not accepted by the Crown. The applicant sought to exclude evidence of a YouTube search conducted one day before the deceased's death. The search query was "best way to dispose of a body." The results of the search were unknown, and the applicant argued that the evidence was not relevant and should be excluded. The Crown contended that the search was relevant and that the applicant’s plea of manslaughter did not satisfy the indictment.

The court had to determine whether the evidence of the YouTube search was relevant and whether its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The court also needed to decide whether there was a special reason to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of Facebook messages between the defendant and Ms Gilmore on 13 August 2015, which the Crown sought to use to contextualise the YouTube search. The court considered the nature of the discretion to admit or exclude evidence and the balance between prejudice and probative value. The court concluded that the YouTube search was relevant and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court found that there was a special reason to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of the Facebook messages as they provided context for the YouTube search.

The court refused the application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search. The court granted the Crown’s application to re-open the ruling on the admissibility of the Facebook messages, finding that they contextualised the YouTube search and were therefore relevant. The Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. The court's decision underscored the importance of context in assessing the admissibility of evidence and the role of judicial discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudice.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. The Application by the Crown to re-open the ruling on 31 August 2017 in relation to the evidence of the Facebook messages between the defendant and Ms Gilmore on 13 August 2015 is granted.

3. The Facebook messages the subject of the ruling on 31 August 2017 are admitted.

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.

CITATION:	R v Bennetts [2017] QSC 194 ; [2017] QSCPR 4
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:	7 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 September 2017
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDERS:	1. The application to exclude the evidence of the YouTube search on 13 August 2015 is refused. 2. The Application by the Crown to re-open the ruling on 31 August 2017 in relation to the evidence of the Facebook messages between the defendant and Ms Gilmore on 13 August 2015 is granted. 3. The Facebook messages the subject of the ruling on 31 August 2017 are admitted.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – GENERALLY – 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 the applicant applies to have the evidence of the search excluded on the basis of relevance – whether the evidence is relevant – whether the evidence should be excluded CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – 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 the applicant applies to have the evidence excluded on the basis of its prejudicial effect – whether the prejudice of the evidence outweighs its probative value – whether the evidence should be excluded CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – 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 Crown submits that the YouTube search contextualises evidence previously ruled to be inadmissible – where the Crown applies pursuant to s 590AA(3) of the Criminal Code to re-open the ruling for special reason – whether a special reason exists – whether the…