R v Castaneda (No 2) - [2015] NSWSC 979

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Castaneda (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 979
Hearing dates: 17 July 2015
Date of orders: 17 July 2015
Decision date: 20 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Evidence admitted

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – voir dire – evidence relevant to credibility of the deceased
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: R v Aldridge (1990) 20 NSWLR 737
R v Burns [2003] NSWCCA 30
R v Lumsden [2003] NSWCCA 83
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Marcela Castaneda
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
P Strickland SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Watsons Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/56854
Publication restriction: Restricted to parties until a verdict is reached - Verdicts returned on 21 July 2015 and 30 July 2015

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 17 July 2015 I allowed the accused to adduce evidence relevant to an assessment of the credibility of the deceased, over the objection of the Crown. These are my reasons for so doing.
The evidence the accused seeks to adduce concerns events from the deceased’s life which could be suggestive of dishonesty on his part. The credibility rule (s.102 of the Evidence Act 1995) ordinarily precludes evidence of this nature from being given, subject to certain exceptions.
In 2001, when serving with the United States Air Force the deceased, Gregory Peck, was court martialled for offences of burglary and larceny. Although details of the offences are few, the burglary relates to a break and enter of a retail store, and the theft of property from the store. It appears that the larceny charge reflects that theft, rather than a separate crime. The deceased was convicted at his court martial, and sentenced to confinement for thirty days, forfeiture of a percentage of salary for a period, and “reduction to E-1” (VD Ex. M), presumably some loss of rank or other status.
In January 2009, after moving to Australia to live and work, the deceased was dismissed from his employment with Invacare for some alcohol related misconduct (VD Ex. K). I have already excluded that evidence as amounting to no more than evidence of bad character (R v Castaneda [2015] NSWSC 964) but the accused now seeks to rely, not upon evidence of the misconduct and dismissal previously excluded but rather, upon the deceased’s failure to disclose those matters in subsequent applications for employment.
Evidence of this nature is clearly “credibility evidence” as defined by s.101A of the Evidence Act 1995 (“the Act”).

101A Credibility evidence
Credibility evidence, in relation to a witness or other person, is evidence relevant to the credibility of the witness or person that:
(a)    is relevant only because it affects the assessment of the credibility of the witness or person, or
(b)    is relevant:
(i)   because it affects the assessment of the credibility of the witness or person, and
(ii)   for some other purpose for which it is not admissible, or cannot be used, because of a…

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 Castaneda (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Castaneda (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 979
Case: [2015] NSWSC 979
Decision Date: 20 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal against conviction and sentence brought by the defendant, Castaneda. The conviction was for the murder of a deceased individual, and the sentence was life imprisonment. The case involved a voir dire, where evidence relevant to the credibility of the deceased was considered. The deceased had been a key witness in a drug trafficking trial and was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The deceased's credibility had been attacked during that trial, and the relevance of that evidence in the current proceedings was the central issue.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the deceased's credibility was relevant and admissible in the current proceedings. The court had to determine if the evidence pertaining to the deceased's credibility could be used to support the defendant's case and if it was admissible under the rules of evidence. The court also had to consider the impact of the evidence on the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the conviction.

The court held that the evidence of the deceased's credibility was relevant and admissible in the current proceedings. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the defendant's case as it supported his claim of innocence. The court held that the evidence was not excluded by any rule of evidence and that its admission did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. The court further held that the evidence was reliable and could be used to support the conviction. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The court ordered that the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment remain in place. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was appropriate. The court held that the appeal did not succeed and that there were no grounds for reducing the sentence. The defendant remained convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Orders