R v Davis and Quinn (No 1) - [2020] NSWSC 1615

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis and Quinn (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1615
Hearing dates: 9 and 10 November 2020
Date of orders: 13 November 2020
Decision date: 13 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
For orders see [225] and [233]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – evidence – 18 objections to evidence proposed to be led by the Crown – relevance – probative value – unfair prejudice – expert evidence of police officer – evidence of drug supply – other orders – whether view warranted

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 18, s 53, s 55, s 56, s 135(a), s 137
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3A)

Cases Cited:
Colby v The Queen [1999] NSWCCA 261
D’Agostino v Regina [2019] NSWCCA 259
Decision Restricted [2020] NSWSC 1297
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Griffiths v The Queen (1994) 69 ALJR 77; 76 A Crim R 164
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; [1995] HCA 37
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; [2016] HCA 30
Odisho v R [2018] NSWCCA 19
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
R v FDP (2009) 74 NSWLR 645; [2008] NSWCCA 317
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
R v Toki (No 3) (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; [2000] NSWSC 999
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50
Standen v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 211
Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Blake Davis (Accused)
Hannah Quinn (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Taylor (Crown)
Ms M Cunneen SC (Accused Davis)
Mr T Hughes (Accused Quinn)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Accused Davis)
Korn MacDougall Legal (Accused Quinn)

File Number(s): 2018/249752; 2018/248991

Judgment

Blake Davis and Hannah Quinn are to stand trial for the murder of Jet McKee. Ms Quinn is further charged, in the alternative, with being an accessory after the fact to murder. Mr McKee was killed on 10 August 2018. The accused were both arrested and charged on 13 August 2018. The accused Ms Quinn was released on bail on 16 August 2018 and the accused Mr Davis was released on bail on 27 November 2018.
On 6 December 2019, both accused were arraigned before Fullerton J in this court. Both pleaded not guilty and the trial was listed on 9 November 2020 with a six week estimate. The matter was subsequently allocated to me on 21 May 2020.
I listed the matter for case management directions on 17 August, 11 September and 12 October 2020. The main issue of concern at those mentions was the service of remaining material to be relied upon by the Crown at the trial.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Davis and Quinn (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 1615
Decision Date: 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Davis and Quinn (No 1) concerned a murder investigation where the defendants objected to the admissibility of proposed Crown evidence. The Crown intended to present evidence that the defendants were involved in drug supply activities. The defendants argued that such evidence was not relevant to the murder charge and would unfairly prejudice their case. The case required the court to determine whether the proposed evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendants.

The court examined the relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence. The defendants' primary argument was that evidence of drug supply was not directly related to the murder charge and would unfairly prejudice their case. The Crown contended that the evidence was relevant as it demonstrated a pattern of criminal activity, including drug supply, which was pertinent to the circumstances surrounding the murder. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against any potential unfair prejudice to the defendants. Furthermore, the court considered whether expert evidence from a police officer regarding drug supply activities should be admitted.

After careful consideration, the court found that the evidence of drug supply activities was relevant to the circumstances of the murder and the background against which it occurred. The court determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The expert evidence from the police officer was deemed admissible as it provided valuable context and insight into the criminal activities relevant to the case. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Crown, allowing the proposed evidence to be presented. The court also addressed other procedural matters and concluded that a view of the premises was not warranted under the circumstances.

The court's final order was that the Crown's proposed evidence, including evidence of drug supply activities and expert testimony from the police officer, was admissible. The court's decision ensured that relevant evidence was considered in the trial, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the case and the circumstances surrounding the alleged murder.

Orders