R v Eastman (No 26)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Eastman (No 26)

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 393

Hearing Date:

27 November 2017

DecisionDate:

20 December 2017

Before:

Kellam AJ

Decision:

The application by the defence for an advance ruling pursuant to s 192 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) is dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – application for an advance ruling – admissibility of fingerprint evidence and evidence of the accused using a false name and address.

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 55, 137, 184, 191 and 192A

Cases Cited:

TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124

R v TR and VG [2004] ACTSC 10; 180 FLR 424

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 (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 111 of 1992

KELLAM AJ:

1. The prosecution seeks to rely on evidence that on 10 February 1988 Geoffrey Bradshaw advertised a .22 calibre rifle for sale in the Canberra Times. The rifle was being sold with a scope. The prosecution case is that the accused attended to inspect the rifle, arriving at Mr Bradshaw’s property on foot, and that Mr Bradshaw recognised the accused from an encounter that they had had some years earlier. The accused was not wearing glasses. He inspected the rifle and gave Mr Bradshaw the impression that he was not experienced in handling firearms. He agreed to purchase the rifle for approximately $90, the sale including the rifle, the scope and some ammunition.

1. Mr Bradshaw requested that the accused sign and write his name and address on the back of Mr Bradshaw’s gun licence so that he would have proof of to whom the firearm was sold. The accused signed the gun licence and provided a false name and address being ‘J F Thomson’ of 124 Atherton Street, Downer. At the relevant time there was no one living at that address with that name and the occupier of the premises at that address had never heard of the accused nor of anyone by the name of ‘J F Thomson’ and had never owned, nor sought to purchase, firearms.

1. Subsequently, a handwriting expert, Mr Westwood, examined the handwriting on the gun licence and confirmed that the handwriting matched that of the accused.

1. Later in the day of the sale, the accused called Mr Bradshaw and told him that the rifle kept jamming. In the meantime, Mr Bradshaw had received a call from a police officer from the gun licencing section. The call alerted him to the fact that he had sold the firearm without sighting a valid licence. Mr Bradshaw told the accused that if he was not happy with the rifle, he could return it. The accused went back…