R v Curtis (No 1) - [2009] SASC 356

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Voir Dire (Murder))
R v CURTIS (No 1)
[2009] SASC 356
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Gray
23 November 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - PROPENSITY, TENDENCY AND CO-INCIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY
Defendant charged with murder - defendant objected to leading of evidence from two witnesses who were to give evidence about relationship of accused and deceased - whether evidence of relationship relevant and admissible.
Held: objection overruled - evidence of relationship relevant, probative and admissible - evidence provided context as to nature of relationship between accused and deceased at time proximate to events in question in trial - probative value of evidence greater than prejudicial effect.
Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334; R v Hissey (1973) 6 SASR 280; R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; R v Collie (2005) 91 SASR 339, considered.

R v CURTIS (No 1)
[2009] SASC 356
Criminal
GRAY J.

During the course of the Crown case objection was taken to the leading of evidence from two witnesses who it was said would give evidence about the relationship of the defendant, Leon Curtis and the deceased, Rebecca Hogan. Having heard submissions of counsel, I overruled the objection. I now provide reasons for my ruling.
The Impugned Evidence
In the present proceeding, the Director proposed to lead evidence from two witnesses, Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny, as to observations they made of Ms Hogan and the defendant some time before the night on which Ms Hogan died. The declarations provided by the Director suggested that the incident occurred some weeks before Ms Hogan’s death.
The declaration of Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny disclosed that several weeks before the death of Ms Hogan there was an incident at Mintabie between the defendant and Ms Hogan. Both recounted that the defendant was aggressive toward Ms Hogan. The defendant demanded that Ms Hogan go with him. It was said that he was plainly angry. As appears from both declarations, the defendant threatened Ms Hogan. Ms Dingaman’s account refers to the defendant threatening Ms Hogan with a rock.
Relevant Legal Principles
It is well established that relationship evidence may be admissible in various circumstances. The evidence may be relevant for one or other of a number of purposes. These include establishing intention or motive, rebutting defences such as provocation and self-defence or simply providing the context of the relationship between a victim and the defendant.
In Wilson,[1] Barwick CJ explained the admissibility of relationship as follows:
It is not in my opinion only in those cases where the evidence of the relations of the accused with others tends to establish motive that it is admissible though that may be the commonest case of its use and the one with which the reported cases have had mostly to deal. If the evidence does tend to explain the occurrence, or, as in this case, to assist the choice between the two explanations of the occurrence, then…

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 Curtis (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Curtis (No 1) [2009] SASC 356
Case: [2009] SASC 356
Decision Date: 23 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Curtis (No 1), the Crown objected to the leading of evidence from two witnesses, Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny, who intended to testify about the relationship between the defendant, Leon Curtis, and the deceased, Rebecca Hogan. The evidence concerned an incident at Mintabie weeks before Ms Hogan's death, where the defendant was aggressive towards Ms Hogan, demanded she go with him, and threatened her with a rock. The Crown argued that the evidence was relevant to understanding the context and nature of the relationship between the defendant and the deceased. The legal issue for the court was whether the proposed evidence was admissible and relevant to the case.

The court considered the established legal principles regarding the admissibility of relationship evidence, referencing Wilson, where Barwick CJ explained that such evidence could be relevant for establishing motive, rebutting defences, or providing context to the relationship between the victim and the defendant. Menzies J emphasised that the jury must understand the relationship to make an informed decision about the circumstances of the death. The court held that evidence of the relationship between the defendant and the deceased was pertinent to the issues before the jury and could assist in determining whether Ms Hogan was murdered or if her death was accidental. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant, probative, and should be admitted, with the risk of propensity reasoning being mitigated by an appropriate direction to the jury.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the evidence from Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny was admissible because it provided crucial context about the relationship between Leon Curtis and Rebecca Hogan. This context was essential for the jury to understand the events leading up to Ms Hogan's death fully. The court's decision was based on the principle that relationship evidence can be relevant in various circumstances, including to establish motive, rebut defences, or provide context to the relationship between the victim and the defendant. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice, and the jury would be directed to consider it appropriately.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

During the course of the Crown case objection was taken to the leading of evidence from two witnesses who it was said would give evidence about the relationship of the defendant, Leon Curtis and the deceased, Rebecca Hogan. Having heard submissions of counsel, I overruled the objection. I now provide reasons for my ruling. The Impugned Evidence In the present proceeding, the Director proposed to lead evidence from two witnesses, Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny, as to observations they made of Ms Hogan and the defendant some time before the night on which Ms Hogan died. The declarations provided by the Director suggested that the incident occurred some weeks before Ms Hogan’s death. The declaration of Ms Dingaman and Ms Kenny disclosed that several weeks before the death of Ms Hogan there was an incident at Mintabie between the defendant and Ms Hogan. Both recounted that the defendant was aggressive toward Ms Hogan. The defendant demanded that Ms Hogan go with him. It was said that he was plainly angry. As appears from both declarations, the defendant threatened Ms Hogan. Ms Dingaman’s account refers to the defendant threatening Ms Hogan with a rock. Relevant Legal Principles It is well established that relationship evidence may be admissible in various circumstances. The evidence may be relevant for one or other of a number of purposes. These include establishing intention or motive, rebutting defences such as provocation and self-defence or simply providing the context of the relationship between a victim and the defendant. In Wilson,[1] Barwick CJ explained the admissibility of relationship as follows:It is not in my opinion only in those cases where the evidence of the relations of the accused with others tends to establish motive that it is admissible though that may be the commonest case of its use and the one with which the reported cases have had mostly to deal. If the evidence does tend to explain the occurrence, or, as in this case, to assist the choice between the two explanations of the occurrence, then in my opinion on general principles, because it is relevant, it is admissible. Of course if it does not have that relevance it is inadmissible. …It is not that all evidence of the relationship of the parties is admissible, but only that from which a relevant inference may logically and reasonably be drawn. … Here the evidence was of quarrelling and bad relationship over a considerable period stretching up to the time of the death of the deceased. In my opinion, the evidence of the relations which had developed between the applicant and his wife was admissible.Menzies J, with whom McTiernan and Walsh JJ agreed, observed:[2]It seems to me that here, as so often happens, an attempt has been made to reduce the law of evidence--which rests fundamentally upon the requirement of relevancy, i.e. having a bearing upon the matter in issue--to a set of artificial rules remote from reality and unsupported by reason. Any jury called upon to decide whether they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant killed his wife would require to know what was the relationship between the deceased and the accused. Were they an ordinary married couple with a good relationship despite differences and disagreements, or was their relationship one of enmity and distrust? It seems to me that nothing spoke more eloquently of the bitter relationship between them than that the wife, in the course of a quarrel, should charge her husband with the desire to kill her. The evidence is admissible not because the wife's statements were causally connected with her death but to assist the jury in deciding whether the wife was murdered in cold blood or was the victim of mischance. To shut the jury off from any event throwing light upon the relationship between this husband and wife would be to require them to decide the issue as if it happened in a vacuum rather than in the setting of a tense and bitter relationship between a man and a woman who were husband and wife. Accordingly, in my opinion the evidence in question was properly admitted because it was pertinent to the issues which the jury had to decide.[1] Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334 at 339.[2] Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334 at 344.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Finally, it was contended that the declarations only evidenced one earlier incident and that that was insufficient to allow any conclusion to be reached about the relationship between the defendant and Ms Hogan. Consideration The jury were entitled to understand the events in question in the trial in the light of the relationship between the defendant and Ms Hogan. The evidence went beyond suggesting that the defendant had a tendency to use violence against Ms Hogan. The evidence provided the context of the nature of the relationship between the defendant and Ms Hogan at the time of her death. The relationship between the defendant and Ms Hogan constituted part of the essential background against which Ms Hogan’s death occurred. The evidence of Ms Kenny and Ms Dingaman operated to avoid the evidence in relation to the night on which Ms Hogan died being considered in a vacuum. The proposed evidence, if accepted, was relevant and probative with respect to the issues identified by the Director. In the above circumstances I reached the conclusion that the proposed evidence was relevant, probative and admissible. In my view its probative value was such that it should be admitted. The risk of propensity reasoning could be guarded against by an appropriate direction to the jury.