R v Eastman (No 37) - [2018] ACTSC 114

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eastman (No 37)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 114
Hearing Date:	30 April 2018
DecisionDate:	2 May 2018
ReasonsDate:	3 May 2018
Before:	Kellam AJ
Decision:	1. The evidence of John Sparkes and June Sparkes is admissible. 2. The evidence of other telephone calls made by the accused in January 1988 to the telephone numbers of persons advertising firearms for sale is admissible.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility of evidence in notices filed pursuant to s 67 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – evidence relied on by the prosecution admissible in rebuttal of assertion that accused searching for a weapon for self‑defence – evidence relevant pursuant to s 56(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) –evidence not excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) as probative value not outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to accused
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 56(2); 67 and 137
Cases Cited:	R v Eastman (No 21) [2017] ACTSC 255 R v Eastman (No 24) [2017] ACTSC 348
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 ACT Director of Public Prosecution (Crown) ACT Legal Aid Office (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 111 of 1992

Kellam AJ:

The prosecution has filed notices pursuant to s 67 (‘s 67 notice/s’) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) (the ‘Act’) in respect of evidence it seeks to lead in relation to various representations of John Sparkes and his wife, June Sparkes, both of whom gave evidence at the first trial but are now deceased.

The substance of the evidence sought to be led in respect of Mr Sparkes is that given by him at the trial on 17 July 1995 to the effect that his son placed an advertisement for a gun for sale in The Canberra Times newspaper on 30 January 1988. The advertisement listed Mr Sparkes’ home telephone number, being 811040, as the contact number. That telephone number was, at the time, an unlisted number. Mr Sparkes gave evidence that he knew nothing of the accused at the time and could give no other reason as to why the accused might have called his phone number.

The evidence in the s 67 notice relied upon by the prosecution in relation to Mrs Sparkes is, in essence, the same as the evidence relied on by the prosecution in relation to Mr Sparkes.

The defence objects to the above evidence being led.

In addition to the above evidence the prosecution, by its Amended Case Statement, has given notice that it intends to rely, as it did upon the first trial, upon a number of other telephone calls which the accused made to persons who were advertising the sale of firearms in January 1988.

By R v Eastman (No 21) [2017] ACTSC 255, I determined…

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 37)

Details

AGLC: R v Eastman (No 37) [2018] ACTSC 114
Case: [2018] ACTSC 114
Decision Date: 2 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Eastman, the respondent, identified as Eastman, faced charges in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence that the prosecution sought to introduce, specifically under sections 67, 56(2), and 137 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The court was tasked with determining whether this evidence was relevant, admissible, and not excluded by the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying the statutory provisions of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) to ascertain the admissibility of evidence. The key questions were whether the evidence was relevant under section 56(2) and whether its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice under section 137. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the prosecution's evidence, which included statements from John Sparkes and June Sparkes, and records of other telephone calls made by Eastman in January 1988, was admissible in rebuttal of Eastman's claim that he was searching for a weapon for self-defence.

The court concluded that the evidence of John Sparkes and June Sparkes was admissible as it was relevant under section 56(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). The court also found that the evidence of other telephone calls made by Eastman in January 1988 was not excluded under section 137 because the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Eastman. The court's reasoning was based on the statutory criteria and the context in which the evidence was to be used, ensuring that the evidence's relevance and fairness were appropriately balanced.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence of John Sparkes and June Sparkes was admissible, and the evidence of other telephone calls made by Eastman in January 1988 to the telephone numbers of persons advertising firearms for sale was also admissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The evidence of John Sparkes and June Sparkes is admissible.

2. The evidence of other telephone calls made by the accused in January 1988 to the telephone numbers of persons advertising firearms for sale is admissible.

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.