R v Dent - [2016] NSWSC 99

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dent [2016] NSWSC 99
Hearing dates: 1 February 2016
Decision date: 04 February 2016
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Evidence inadmissible

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – tendency and co-incidence – ss 97, 98 Evidence Act – admissibility of evidence that accused had a tendency to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm and rob victims in public parks – evidence of previous murders – no significant probative value due to lapse of 37 years between relevant events – evidence inadmissible
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 97, 98, 101
Evidence Regulation 2015 (NSW) cls 5, 6
Cases Cited: Hughes v R [2015] NSWCCA 330
R v Watkins [2005] NSWCCA 164; 153 A Crim R 434
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Anthony Richard Dent
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Cunneen SC (Crown)
Mr M Austin (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2014/102198

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 1 February 2016 I heard submissions on the objection by the accused to the Crown's proposal to adduce tendency and coincidence evidence. On 4 February I ruled that the evidence was inadmissible. The following are the reasons for that ruling.

Overview of prosecution case

The accused, Anthony Richard Dent, was charged with the murder of Anthony O'Grady at Wickham, an inner city suburb of Newcastle, on or about 25 March 2014. He was also charged with robbery in company inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Mr O'Grady. Both charges arose from the one incident.
Briefly, the Crown alleges that Mr Dent, in a joint criminal enterprise with his co-accused RC and JM, and one Jeffrey Schott, committed a planned robbery of Mr O'Grady in the course of which Mr Dent seriously assaulted him causing fatal blunt force trauma. Mr O'Grady was a 52 year-old man who was known to have wealth. In the late afternoon of 25 March 2014 a plan was discussed between the four men to entice Mr O'Grady to go to Wickham Park where he would be robbed.
The Crown alleges that once Mr O'Grady was in the park, the accused Dent struck him causing him to fall to the ground. Mr Dent hit him further and then started to take his pants off. He removed Mr O'Grady's underwear and used it to gag him. Rope was used to bind his hands to his feet behind him. The Crown alleges that Mr Dent removed Mr O'Grady's house and car keys from his pockets and threw them to JM, telling him to go to Mr O'Grady's house and take his car and belongings. JM, RC and Schott then left the park.
Sometime later Mr Dent went to an ATM where he attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw funds from Mr O'Grady's bank account. Subsequent telephone contact indicated that Mr Dent intended to return to the park to obtain Mr O'Grady's correct PIN. Sometime after that, Mr Dent communicated by telephone to the effect that Mr O'Grady was "gone".

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 Dent

Details

AGLC: R v Dent [2016] NSWSC 99
Case: [2016] NSWSC 99
Decision Date: 04 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dent was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Dent, was charged with grievous bodily harm and robbery. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence that suggested Dent had a pattern of committing similar crimes in public parks. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of two previous murders that were allegedly committed by Dent 37 years prior to the current charges. The court had to determine whether this evidence was admissible under sections 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act.

The court considered whether the evidence of the previous murders had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect. Section 97 of the Evidence Act allows for evidence of a person's bad character if it has significant probative value. Section 98, however, prohibits the admission of evidence if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. The court found that the significant lapse of time between the previous murders and the current charges diminished the probative value of the evidence. Given the 37-year gap, the court concluded that the evidence was unlikely to accurately reflect Dent's current propensity for committing such crimes.

Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence of the previous murders was inadmissible. The court held that the temporal distance between the past events and the current charges rendered the evidence insufficiently probative to be of any real assistance in determining Dent's guilt or innocence in the present matter. The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial impact, ultimately favouring the exclusion of the contested evidence. The final orders of the court reflected this reasoning, excluding the evidence of the previous murders from the trial.

Orders