R v Eastman (No 24) - [2017] ACTSC 348

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eastman (No 24)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 348
Hearing Date(s):	27 June 2017 - 28 June 2017
DecisionDate:	27 November 2017
Before:	Kellam AJ
Decision:	See [59] - [60]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - Judicial Discretion to admit or exclude evidence - Admissibility of coincidence evidence relied upon by prosecution - whether .the coincidence evidence is relevant pursuant to s 55 Evidence Act2011 (ACT) - whether the similarities in the events and or circumstances relied on by the prosecution are such that it . is improbable that the events happened coincidentally - whether the coincidence evidence will have significant probative value - operation of s 98 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) - whether the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect on the defendant pursuant to s 101 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) - some of the coincidence evidence found to be relevant and to have significant probative value that outweighs prejudicial effect.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 55, 98 and 101
Cases Cited:	DSJ v The Queen; NS v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 9; 259 FLR 262 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487 R v Miles [2013] ACTSC 48
Texts Cited:	S Odgers SC, Uniform Evidence Law (Thompson Reuters, 12^th ed, 2016)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Harold Eastman (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Thangaraj SC, Ms M Campbell and Mr K Lee (Crown) Mr G Georgiou SC, Mr M Stanton and Ms L Line (Accused)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid Office (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 111 of 1992

Kellam AJ:

Coincidence

On 25 September 2015 the prosecution filed and served an amended notice of intention to adduce coincidence evidence. That notice sets out the particulars of the acts it seeks to prove by the evidence as follows:

Evidence of the events ... will be led to prove that the accused did particular acts on the basis that, having regard to similarities in both the events and the circumstances in which they occurred, it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally.
The particular acts are as follows:
1.It was the accused who Mr Webb saw walking into Mr Klarenbeek’s residence on 31 December 1988.
2.It was the accused who purchased the Ruger 10/22 rifle (the murder weapon) from Mr Klarenbeek on 1 January 1989.

The notice contains details of 11 events which the prosecution relies upon as demonstrating such similarity with each other so as to submit that it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally. The 11th such event is said to be the alleged purchase of the accused from Mr Klarenbeek of the murder weapon on 1 January 1989.

Admissibility of coincidence evidence is governed by ss 55, 98 and 101 of the

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 Eastman (No 24)

Details

AGLC: R v Eastman (No 24) [2017] ACTSC 348
Case: [2017] ACTSC 348
Decision Date: 27 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eastman (No 24) involved the defendant, Eastman, facing a criminal trial in the ACT Magistrates Court. The dispute centred on the admissibility of coincidence evidence proposed to be introduced by the prosecution. This evidence pertained to similarities between the events and circumstances of the alleged crime and those of a previous crime committed by the defendant.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the coincidence evidence was relevant under section 55 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), and whether the similarities in the events and circumstances were such that it was improbable that they happened coincidentally. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the coincidence evidence would have significant probative value and whether its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect on the defendant under sections 98 and 101 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).

In assessing the admissibility of the coincidence evidence, the court applied a rigorous analysis under the statutory provisions. It found that some of the coincidence evidence was relevant and had significant probative value that outweighed the prejudicial effect on the defendant. Consequently, this evidence was deemed admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).

The court ruled that certain coincidence evidence would be admitted into the trial, while other evidence was excluded due to its lack of probative value or its potential for undue prejudice. This decision was made in accordance with the statutory criteria for admissibility, ensuring a balanced consideration of both the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [59] - [60]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.