R v Eastman (No 48) - [2018] ACTSC 276

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eastman (No 48)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 276
Hearing Date(s):	2 October 2018
DecisionDate:	4 October 2018
Before:	Kellam AJ
Decision:	See [44]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – whether prosecution entitled to rely upon evidence as establishing consciousness of guilt
Cases Cited:	R v Howard [2005] VSCA 235; 156 A Crim R 343 R v Nguyen [2001] VSCA 1; 118 A Crim R 479
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:

In the course of his opening address, Mr Thangaraj referred to the evidence that he anticipated would be led from Senior Constable Coutts as to an observation made by Mr Coutts on 10 January 1989, of the accused in a car‑park near the back of the City Police Station. He stated that Mr Coutts would say that the clothes being worn by the accused were ‘quite formal’. Nothing else was said in the opening address as to the clothes said to have been worn by the accused that day.

Subsequently, in the course of his opening address, Mr Thangaraj referred to the evidence that the prosecution intended to lead as to statements made by the accused to Detectives Jackson and Thomson in the course of the afternoon of 11 January 1989, when the accused claimed to have no memory of where he had been and whether he had gone out to get something to eat on the previous evening. He said that the prosecution would argue that the accused ‘deliberately lied because he was covering up the fact that he had murdered Mr Winchester’. Apart from that matter, no other post-offence conduct of the accused was included in the prosecution’s opening address as being evidence of a consciousness of guilt.

Likewise the Amended Case Statement, filed on 24 August 2015, although referring in some detail to the way in which the prosecution sought at that time to rely upon what the accused is alleged to have said to Detectives Jackson and Thomson on 11 January 1989, does not suggest that any post‑offence conduct of the accused was to be relied upon in such a manner. The Amended Case Statement included a detailed summary (in [8]) of the ‘Lies or False Denials’ which the prosecution, at that stage, sought to rely upon. There was no reference to there being any reliance by the prosecution upon evidence of Mr Coutts as to what the accused was wearing on the afternoon of 10 January 1989.

However, in the course of evidence given before the jury, a number of matters arose upon which the prosecution now seeks to rely, either as consciousness of guilt, or as evidence that is in any event…

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 48)

Details

AGLC: R v Eastman (No 48) [2018] ACTSC 276
Case: [2018] ACTSC 276
Decision Date: 4 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal against conviction in a criminal case, where the appellant, Eastman, was convicted of various offences related to drug trafficking. The prosecution relied on evidence that the appellant had made certain statements and engaged in certain behaviours that were considered indicative of consciousness of guilt. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central issue for the court was whether the prosecution was entitled to rely on evidence of the appellant's statements and behaviours as establishing consciousness of guilt. The court had to consider the admissibility of such evidence under the common law and whether it could be used to infer the appellant's guilt.

The court examined the relevant legal principles concerning the admissibility of evidence of consciousness of guilt and the circumstances in which such evidence could be used to establish guilt. It noted that while evidence of consciousness of guilt could be relevant, it had to be carefully considered in the context of the overall evidence presented in the case. The court held that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence and properly directed the jury on its use. It found that the evidence of consciousness of guilt, when considered alongside other evidence, was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The court made no further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [44]

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.