R v Collett - [2011] NTSC 87

R v Collett [2011] NTSC 87
PARTIES: The Queen
v

Collett, Glenn

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   21014612
DELIVERED:   21 OCTOBER 2011
HEARING DATES:   17 AND 18 OCTOBER 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   KELLY J

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:   P Usher
Defendant:   L Bennett
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:   Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:   KEL11024
Number of pages:   13

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
R v Collett [2011] NTSC 87
No. 21014612
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND:

GLENN COLLETT

Defendant

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 21 October 2011)

The accused, Mr Collett, has been charged with the attempted murder of his son in law. There is evidence that in the early hours of the morning of 1 May 2010, Mr Collett lured his son in law into the Yates Pavilion at the Darwin Showgrounds and shot him in the back of the chest. One of the major issues in the case is likely to be intention.
Mr Collett was arrested at around 6.45 am on the morning of Saturday 1 May 2010. He was taken to the Darwin Watch House and held under the provisions of s 137 of the Police Administration Act. Just before 3.00 pm on Sunday 2 May 2010, police requested Mr Collett to participate in an electronically recorded interview, but he declined.
At about 5:00 pm a pre-text telephone call was conducted by Mr Collett’s daughter (the wife of the son in law who had been shot) at the Darwin Watch House during which Mr Collett stated, among other things:
“I’m terribly terribly sorry;
I should never done what I done;
I should never have interfered. You told me to stay out of it.
It’s night time nearly.
I am so sorry (to ruin your weekend).
I didn’t do what you’ve been told I done.
I can’t tell you where the gun is – the phone is probably hooked up to everybody else.
I can guarantee the gun is not in the house or on the showground.
All he wants to do is walk away from you.
I can’t tell you the facts;
The solicitor knows where the gun is.
I did not mean to kill him, I was standing looking at him with not a yard between us, if I had wanted to kill him I wouldn’t have shot him in the bloody foot or the arm, I’d have shot him in the forehead or the heart.
It went in his back somewhere as he turned around.”
Following this recorded telephone conversation, at around 6.00 pm on Sunday 2 May, Mr Collett was charged with a number of offences including attempted murder.
The officer in charge of the investigation, Det Sgt Annette Cooper, told Mr Collett that she was refusing him bail and asked him if he wanted to apply to…

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 Collett

Details

AGLC: R v Collett [2011] NTSC 87
Case: [2011] NTSC 87
Decision Date: 21/10/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collett involved the defendant, Glenn Collett, who was charged with the attempted murder of his son-in-law. The key issue for the court was whether the statements Collett made during a phone call to his daughter, in which he admitted to intending to kill the victim, were voluntary and reliable, and therefore admissible as evidence. The defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded on the grounds that the admissions were not voluntary and that it would be unfair to admit the evidence due to its unreliability.

The court considered the voluntariness of the statements first, finding that there was no evidence to suggest that Collett was coerced or pressured into making the phone call or that the content of the conversation was not entirely voluntary. The court found that Collett had willingly asked to make the call, was left alone to make it, and there were no inducements offered to him. As for the issue of fairness, the court found that the evidence was reliable and that any questions about its reliability were matters for the jury to consider. The court rejected the defence's argument that the daughter had a motive to misrepresent what was said in the conversation, stating that it was for the jury to assess the reliability of the evidence.

The court also dismissed the defence's claim that Collett's detention was unlawful at the time he made the phone call, and that this rendered the admissions inadmissible. The court found that Collett's detention was lawful, and even if it had been unlawful, it would not necessarily have required the exclusion of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence of Collett's admissions during the phone call to his daughter would be admitted.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory found that the statements made by Collett during the phone call to his daughter were voluntary and reliable, and therefore admissible as evidence. The court rejected the defence's arguments that the admissions should be excluded on the grounds of unvoluntariness and unfairness. The evidence will be presented to the jury for their consideration in determining Collett's guilt or innocence.

Orders