R v Eastman (No 24)

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

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