R v Eastman (No 25)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Eastman (No 25)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 364

Hearing Date:

27 November 2017

DecisionDate:

27 November 2017

ReasonsDate:

7 December 2017  

Before:

Kellam AJ

Decision:

The evidence that the prosecution proposes to lead from Rosemary Matheson and Gabrielle Paten is admissible.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Relevance – Admissibility – discretion or requirement to exclude evidence in certain circumstances – evidence could rationally affect assessment of existence of fact in issue pursuant to s 55 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – probative value of evidence not significantly outweighed thus not excluded pursuant to s 135 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – danger of unfair prejudice does not outweigh probative value thus not excluded pursuant to s 137 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 55, 135 and 137

Cases Cited:

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Paulino [2017] VSCA 38

Evans v The Queen [2007] HCA 59; 235 CLR 521
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618

Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

David Harold Eastman (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Thangaraj SC with Ms M Campbell and Mr K Lee (Crown)

Mr G Georgiou SC with Mr M Stanton and Ms L Line (Accused)

Solicitors

Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

ACT Legal Aid (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 111 of 1992

KELLAM AJ:

1. The prosecution has given notice of its intention to call as witnesses two former employees of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). The proposed witnesses, Ms Rosemary Matheson and Ms Gabrielle Paten, gave evidence at the first trial of the accused after the trial judge rejected an application made by counsel for the accused that the evidence was not relevant and thus was inadmissible.

Ms Rosemary Matheson

1. Ms Matheson’s position at the AEC in 1998 required her to maintain the electoral rolls for the Division of Canberra and to deal with members of the public in relation thereto. Ms Paten’s position at that time was as a divisional clerk and her duties included general electoral roll maintenance and handling enquiries from members of the public.

2. Ms Matheson gave evidence at the trial of the accused that in 1988 the AEC kept what was described as an ‘official roll’ which was a computer print-out of the names and addresses of those persons on the roll. In addition there was a ‘supplementary roll’ (or ‘additions list’) which included those people which came onto the electoral roll after the official roll had been printed. That supplementary roll, together with the official roll, acted as an interim roll until the next printing of the official roll. The information contained in both rolls included a voter’s name and address.

3. The official roll was available for members of the public to examine and was kept at Ms Matheson’s desk. The supplementary roll was available to members of the public upon request. Assistant…