R v Bryce (No 2) - [2014] NSWSC 498

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bryce (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 498
Hearing dates: 29 April 2014
Decision date: 29 April 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1. The accused may adduce evidence of the conduct of the deceased referable to the alleged tendency of the deceased to behave aggressively and violently as described in entries 1 to 3, 7 and 8, 10 to 14, 16 to 22 and 26 to 27 of the Tendency Notice dated 22 April 2014.
2. The accused may adduce evidence of the conduct of the deceased referable to the alleged tendency of the deceased to engage in self-harm as described in entry 1 of the Tendency Notice dated 22 April 2014.
3. The accused may tender the balance of the documents referable to the alleged tendency of the deceased to engage in self-harm that are annexed to the Tendency Notice dated 22 April2014.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE - TENDENCY - tendency evidence adduced by accused - tendency of deceased to engage in "violent/aggressive behaviour" - tendency of deceased towards self-harm - COPS entries - medical records - whether evidence has significant probative value.
Legislation Cited: - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 69, s 97
Cases Cited: - DSJ v R; NS v R [2012] NSWCCA 9
- R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495
Category: Procedural and other rulings
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

This judgment deals with an application by the accused to adduce tendency evidence which is opposed by the Crown. The accused was arraigned yesterday. The jury is due to be empanelled tomorrow.

Yesterday I gave judgment concerning certain objections by the accused to aspects of the evidence sought to be adduced by the Crown (R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495 ("Bryce (No 1)"). In doing so, I outlined the Crown case. I will not repeat that description, save that it is necessary to expand upon one matter.

In Bryce (No 1) at [10], I noted that in his interview with the police the accused suggested that the deceased had a propensity to self-harm. It is necessary to describe this aspect of the interview in more detail. The interview was conducted on the afternoon of 16 May 2012. At one point, the accused was asked about the bruising on the deceased's face. He stated that the deceased was "always repeatedly punching herself" (question 544), and stated that she punched herself on the day before, that is, on 15 May 2012 (question 549). Later, when asked about some of her injuries, the accused stated that the deceased was often "head butting walls" (question 804).

It is also necessary to note that in Bryce (No 1) I overruled an objection to the Crown tendering photographs taken of 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 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Bryce (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 498
Case: [2014] NSWSC 498
Decision Date: 29 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bryce (No 2) was heard by the Court of Appeal, where the accused, Bryce, appealed against his conviction for the murder of the deceased. The primary issue in this appeal was the admissibility of certain tendency evidence presented by the accused. This evidence was intended to demonstrate the deceased's propensity for violent and aggressive behaviour, as well as a tendency towards self-harm. The evidence included police records and medical records which were sought to be admitted to rebut the prosecution's case.

The court had to determine whether the tendency evidence had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect it may have on the jury. The central legal issue was whether the evidence of the deceased's violent and aggressive tendencies and self-harm tendencies had significant probative value, and if so, whether it was admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. The court examined the weight of the evidence and its relevance to the case, balancing this against any potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence of the deceased's violent and aggressive tendencies was relevant and had significant probative value in the context of the case. The court found that the evidence was not merely collateral but directly relevant to the issues in dispute, specifically the nature of the altercation leading to the deceased's death. The court also determined that the evidence of the deceased's tendency towards self-harm was not admissible as it did not have sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudicial effect it may have on the jury. The appeal was partially allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the evidence in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court included the direction that the trial court reconsider the admissibility of the evidence of the deceased's violent and aggressive tendencies, while excluding the evidence of the deceased's tendency towards self-harm. The court also directed that the trial court reassess the impact of the admissible evidence on the overall fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury's verdict.

Orders