R v Eastman (No 50) - [2018] ACTSC 321

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Eastman (No 50)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 321
Hearing Date:	12 November 2018
DecisionDate:	13 November 2018
ReasonsDate:	5 December 2018
Before:	Kellam AJ
Decision:	That the jury should be given a direction that they need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that words recorded on covert listening devices were admissions by the accused to the murder of Mr Winchester and that those admissions were truthful.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Directions to jury – Need for trial judge to give direction pursuant to Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258 (‘Burns direction’) where prosecution relies on confession or admission - jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that confession or admission of guilt to crime made by accused and that confession or admission truthful – Burns direction given in this matter although not required to be given in every circumstance
Cases Cited:	Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258 Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180 Magill v The Queen [2013] VSCA 259; 42 VR 616 R v Brooks [1999] VSCA 5; 103 A Crim R 234 R v Franklin [2001] VSCA 79; 3 VR 9 R v Green [2002] VSCA 34; 4 VR 471 R v Kotzmann [1999] VSCA 27; 2 VR 123 R v Lewis [2000] VSCA 140; 1 VR 290 R v Mitchell [2006] VSCA 289 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
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:	SCC 111 of 1992

Kellam AJ:

By letter dated 7 November 2018 and on the fourth day of my summing‑up to the jury the defence submitted that a ‘full Burns direction’ (i.e. Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258 (‘Burns’)) should be given to the jury in respect of alleged admissions made by the accused on listening device recordings. The matter came on for oral argument on 12 November 2018.

On the morning of 13 November 2018 I ruled that I would direct the jury in accordance with Burns that before they could use the alleged admissions as evidence of the guilt of the accused, they would be required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the words they were satisfied could be heard on the recordings in question did amount to an admission of guilt by the accused to the murder of Mr Winchester and furthermore, that the admission in question was true. I stated at that time that I would provide reasons for that ruling in writing in due course.

In Burns the only evidence against the accused, Mr Burns, was a confession that he had allegedly made to police. The trial judge in…

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 50)

Details

AGLC: R v Eastman (No 50) [2018] ACTSC 321
Case: [2018] ACTSC 321
Decision Date: 13 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eastman (No 50) involved the accused, Eastman, who was on trial for the murder of Mr Winchester. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the key issue revolved around the admissibility and reliability of a confession or admission made by the accused during covert surveillance. The prosecution sought to rely on recordings made through these devices, which captured conversations where the accused allegedly admitted to the crime. The primary legal question before the court was whether the trial judge was required to give a specific direction to the jury, akin to the direction mandated in Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258, when the prosecution relies on such admissions. The Burns direction mandates that the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made the confession or admission and that it was truthful.

The court considered whether the Burns direction was necessary in every instance where a confession or admission was recorded covertly. It ultimately determined that while the direction might not be required in every circumstance, it was appropriate in this case to ensure the jury understood the necessity of being convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the words recorded were indeed admissions by the accused and were truthful. This was crucial to safeguard against the risk of convicting an accused based on unreliable or misunderstood recordings. The court held that the trial judge should have given such a direction to the jury to properly evaluate the evidence against the accused.

In light of the above, the court concluded that the jury needed to be directed that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the words recorded on the covert listening devices were admissions by the accused to the murder of Mr Winchester and that those admissions were truthful. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the reliability and credibility of any evidence derived from covert surveillance, particularly when it forms the basis of a confession or admission. The court's decision underscores the need for clear and precise jury directions to avoid any potential miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the jury should be given a direction that they need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that words recorded on covert listening devices were admissions by the accused to the murder of Mr Winchester and that those admissions were truthful.

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.