Legal Research
Cases
R v Bryce (No 1)

R v Bryce (No 1)

Case [2014] NSWSC 495 28 April 2014

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay

Prejudicial Effect

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495
Hearing dates: 28 April 2014
Decision date: 28 April 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence of statements made by deceased about assaults upon her on 11 and 14 May 2012 rejected.
Evidence of photographs and observations of deceased's injuries on 15 May 2012 allowed.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE - statements made by deceased about previous assaults upon her - relationship evidence - hearsay - s 65(2)(b) of the Evidence Act - whether representations made "shortly after" asserted fact occurred.
EVIDENCE - photographs and observations of deceased's injuries - whether probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect - Evidence Act s 137.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 65, s 137
Cases Cited: - Conway v R (2000) 98 FCR 204
- Harris v R [2005] NSWCCA 432
- R v Toki (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
- Williams v R [2000] FCA 1868; 119 A Crim R 490
- Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Crown (Prosecutor)
John Keith Bryce (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
E. Balodis (Crown)
P.S. Williams (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Andrew Scali (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/156908
Publication restriction: Not published until after verdict reached.

ex tempore Judgment

On admissibility of evidence

This morning the accused, John Keith Bryce, was arraigned on an indictment that included one count, namely, that on or about 15 May 2012 at Waterloo in the State of New South Wales he did murder Katryn Barton. To that charge, he pleaded not guilty. However, a jury was not empanelled. Instead, I commenced hearing argument concerning the accused's objection to certain evidence sought to be led by the Crown.

This judgment concerns the objection to two aspects of the evidence sought to be tendered by the Crown. Before dealing with those objections it is first necessary to briefly describe the Crown case.

The Crown case

It is common ground that, as at the date of her death, the deceased and the accused had been in a relationship for approximately a year. They lived together in a flat in Pitt Street, Waterloo. On the morning of 15 May 2012, the deceased was admitted to hospital. She had sutures administered to a wound on her head. Around that time, she made a statement to the police that the wound had been caused when the accused had struck her with a toilet brush earlier that morning. She repeated that allegation to a number of other witnesses.

The deceased was released from hospital at around 10.35am on 15 May 2012. It is not presently necessary to describe in detail her movements throughout that day, other than to note that around 5pm she returned to her apartment. According to the Crown case, about two hours later the accused also returned to the apartment.

At 9.15pm that night, two police officers attended the apartment in order to interview the accused in relation to 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 Bryce (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495
Case: [2014] NSWSC 495
Decision Date: 28 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bryce (No 1) involved the prosecution of the defendant, Bryce, on a charge of murder. The deceased had been found deceased, and the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of previous assaults on the deceased by the defendant, as well as photographs and observations of the deceased's injuries. The court was required to determine the admissibility of the deceased's statements and the photographs, considering the provisions of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the statements fell within the exception to the hearsay rule under section 65(2)(b) of the Evidence Act, which pertains to statements made shortly after an event, and whether the probative value of the photographs outweighed any prejudicial effect under section 137 of the Evidence Act.

The court found that the deceased's statements were made shortly after the alleged assaults, thereby satisfying the criteria under section 65(2)(b) of the Evidence Act. The court held that these statements were admissible as they were relevant to the issues in the case and were made under circumstances that made it unlikely that they were fabricated. Regarding the photographs and observations of the deceased's injuries, the court concluded that their probative value was not outweighed by the prejudicial effect, and thus, they were admissible. The court determined that the photographs and observations were necessary to understand the circumstances of the deceased's death and the nature of the injuries she sustained.

The court's reasoning and outcome established that the evidence of previous assaults and the photographs of the deceased's injuries were admissible, providing a crucial part of the prosecution's case. The decision underscored the importance of considering the timing and context of statements when applying the hearsay exception and the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect when assessing the admissibility of photographs. The final orders included the admissibility of the contested evidence, allowing the trial to proceed with the relevant materials considered by the jury.

Orders