R v Edwards - [2020] ACTSC 243

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Edwards
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 243
Hearing Dates:	7 – 9 September 2020
DecisionDate:	11 September 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [138]
Catchwords: .	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Particular offences – aggravated burglary – joint commission – whether a reasonable doubt exists as to the existence of an agreement between the two co-accused – it does – not guilty on both counts CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility of co-accused’s statement of facts – hearsay – where co-accused denied any recollection of events in the statement – statement could substantially affect witness’s credibility – therefore admissible under s 60 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – no requirement for a limiting order CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application in proceeding – application to amend the indictment after the close of the defence case – unfairness to the accused – amendment would not affect finding of guilt – application refused
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 308, 311, 312, 321 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 60, 103, 136 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 57, 72 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Cases Cited:	Power v The Queen [2014] VSCA 146; 43 VR 261
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kerrod Edwards (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S McFarland (Crown) S McLaughlin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 275 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The accused is charged with two counts of aggravated burglary under s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Both relate to an address in [redacted] in Kambah. Both allege that the offence was committed in company with Melissa Kate Baker. Both are alleged to be offences of joint commission under s 45A of the Criminal Code.

Count 1 alleges that the accused entered or remained in a building with intent to commit theft, reflecting the terms of s 311(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Count 2 alleges that he entered or remained in a building “with intent to commit an offence that involved causing harm, or threatening to cause harm, to anyone in the building”, reflecting the terms of s 311(1)(b).

The Crown case was made more difficult by the fact that two important witnesses who would be expected to be able to recall the events in question, and who were called to give evidence by the Crown, alleged that they had little or no recollection of what occurred.

Directions

Under s 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) I am obliged to set out:

(a)the principles of law applied; and
(b)the findings of fact which I make.

I am also obliged to take into account any warning or direction to be given, or a comment to be made, that would have been made to a jury in the proceedings had the matter been tried before a jury: s 68C(3).

In this part of my…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2020] ACTSC 243
Case: [2020] ACTSC 243
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards was heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Edwards, was charged with the murder of his former partner. The appeal against conviction was based on the argument that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of a previous domestic violence incident. The Court was required to determine whether the evidence was admissible and, if so, whether its admission led to a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had properly applied the principles of admissibility under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the Court needed to consider whether the evidence of the previous domestic violence incident was relevant to a matter in issue between the parties, and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. The Court also had to assess whether the admission of this evidence led to a situation where the trial was unfair, potentially resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court held that the trial judge had correctly admitted the evidence of the previous domestic violence incident as it was relevant to the issue of the defendant’s state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the murder. The Court found that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have had on the jury. The Court further determined that the admission of this evidence did not lead to an unfair trial or a miscarriage of justice, as the jury was properly directed on the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the conviction.

The final orders of the Court confirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, with no further appeal permitted. The Court's decision underscores the importance of properly assessing the admissibility of similar fact evidence in criminal trials, ensuring that the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect is carefully managed to uphold the fairness of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [138]

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.