R v Chalmers (Ruling No 2)

[2009] VSC 483

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1454 of 2007

THE QUEEN

v

NEIL CAMERON CHALMERS

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN  J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 February 2009
DATE OF RULING:	12 February 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Chalmers (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 483

---

CRIMINAL PROCEEDING – Jury request chronology of events – Defence objection to Crown highlighting of certain evidence within chronology – Sensitive questions of highlighting and editing – Defence chronology accepted with one exception.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Dane QC	Lethbridges Barristers and Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1. The jury has requested a chronology.  The Crown has prepared one and the Defence has responded with an edited version of that chronology.  It falls to be decided which is appropriate. 

1. Firstly, in my view, the intention of the chronology is to provide a framework in which to understand the evidence.  There will always be dispute as to what merits inclusion in such documents in a circumstantial case and one of the things that tends to distinguish homicide cases from other cases is that they often are based on an accumulation of circumstances. 

1. The Crown has prepared a chronology which timetables a series of communications and movements upon which its case is effectively founded as to the question of premeditation of the killing of the deceased, the mode and time of killing, the burial of the deceased and other conduct of the accused after the death of the deceased. 

1. Mr Dane objects to the highlighting of certain matters, as he puts it, even though, as he has confirmed this morning, the matters challenged in the chronology were not challenged to have existed as a matter of fact when relevant witnesses have deposed to them. 

1. It seems to me that the question of highlighting and editing is a sensitive one and I am prepared to accept the defence version of the document with one exception.  It seems to me that the full entry of 7 pm and the entry of 8 pm on Friday 24 February 2006 should be included.  This refers to a visit of a friend of the deceased with others to the apartment.  As I understand it, the termination of that visit was the last occasion on which the Crown is able to adduce evidence of the deceased being alive.  It therefore seems to me that it is a significant gatepost in assessing the circumstantial case and those two entries should go in. 

1. The other matters that are to be edited out relate principally to conversations.  It will, of course, be open to Mr Rose to refer to them and their place in the chronology of events by reference to the document that the jury will have.  In other words, what is in issue is the skeleton framework that should go in the chronology, not any limitation of the sequence of events which the Crown relies upon to demonstrate premeditation and events associated with the burial and other matters that, it would contend, both confirm the premeditation of the killing and demonstrate consciousness of guilt.  And I so rule.