R v Davis and Quinn (No 3) - [2020] NSWSC 1750

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis and Quinn (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1750
Hearing dates: 3 and 4 December 2020
Date of orders: 7 December 2020
Decision date: 07 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
The audition tape is inadmissible.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – joint criminal enterprise - self-defence – excessive self-defence – audition video – use of swords and weapons – many weapons tendered on voir dire – defendant aspiring actor and model – skills in baton twirling – The Shannara Chronicles – dramatic music – effect of “cranky” face – probative value – potential prejudice

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 55, s 56, s 137

Cases Cited:
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Davis and Quinn (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1615
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50

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

Background

Blake Davis and Hannah Quinn are currently standing trial for the murder of Jett McKee. Ms Quinn is further charged, in the alternative, with being an accessory after the fact to murder. On 10 August 2018, Mr Davis killed Jett McKee with a Samurai sword. Eyewitnesses describe him striking down on the deceased’s head once with both of his hands holding the samurai sword. Mr McKee had just broken into Mr Davis’ home armed with, inter alia, a pistol and knuckledusters. Ms Quinn is the girlfriend of Mr Davis and was present at the time. She later told police in her ERISP that Mr McKee made serious threats to them both, punched Mr Davis to the eye causing a fractured eye socket, grabbed her handbag and then fled.
Eyewitnesses describe the deceased running up the street pursued by Ms Quinn who was heard to call out to him words to the effect of “[w]ho the fuck are you?” Most of those witnesses did not observe the deceased to be carrying anything in his hands. A workman noticed what he thought was a handbag in his hands as did Mr McKee’s co-offender, a witness known in these proceedings as Frank O’Connor. Mr Davis was also seen to run out some distance behind Ms Quinn and Mr McKee. Eyewitnesses describe him to have blood over his face. When he caught up with Ms Quinn and Mr McKee, he struck Mr McKee to the head with the samurai sword, as described above. It is common ground that Mr Davis was a collector of ornamental swords and other similar items.
The Crown case is that Mr Davis and Ms Quinn formed a joint criminal enterprise at some stage of the home invasion to chase Mr McKee…

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 3) 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 1750
Decision Date: 07 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davis and Quinn (No 3) involved two defendants who were convicted of the murder of a third person. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants argued that they were acting in self-defence, claiming that they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise with the deceased. They contended that their actions were justified in response to threats posed by the deceased, who was armed with various weapons. The court had to determine whether the defendants’ claims of self-defence were valid and whether their actions constituted excessive self-defence.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of self-defence under Victorian criminal law, the concept of a joint criminal enterprise, and the admissibility and probative value of an audition video which showed the defendants using swords and various weapons. The court had to weigh the potential prejudice of the video against its probative value. Additionally, the court needed to consider the defendants' skills in baton twirling and their background as aspiring actors and models, including their familiarity with dramatic music and the impact of their appearance on the jury.

The court found that the defendants' claims of self-defence were not substantiated by the evidence. The audition video, which was intended to demonstrate the defendants' skills, was deemed to have significant potential prejudice due to its dramatic nature and the effect of the defendants' "cranky" faces. The court ruled that the video's probative value did not outweigh the risk of prejudice. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendants' actions were not justified under self-defence and amounted to excessive self-defence. The convictions for murder were upheld.

The final orders of the court upheld the convictions of the defendants for murder, rejecting their claims of self-defence and excessive self-defence. The court's decision was based on the assessment that the evidence did not support the defendants' claims and that the audition video, while probative of their skills, was more prejudicial than helpful in determining the facts of the case.

Orders