R v Edwards (No 2) - [2019] NSWSC 1820

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Edwards (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1820
Hearing dates: 29 October 2019
Decision date: 29 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Representations made by Ms Sharon Edwards in relation to specific topics are admissible

Catchwords: EVIDENCE — admissibility – trial on charge of murder – representations made by deceased to friends in text and Facebook messages – representations made by deceased contained in witness statements – no issue that representations are admissible under first-hand hearsay exceptions – objection to representations not proximate in time on basis of relevance – objection to some witness statements on basis of relevance due to remoteness, lack of specificity, and reliability – discretion to admit representations in relation to specific topics
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 65(2)(b), 66A
Cases Cited: Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
John Wallace Edwards
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Ratcliffe (Crown)
Mr P O’Connor (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Fuggle Rummery (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/184174

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The Crown case is that the accused is responsible for Ms Sharon Edwards, his wife, having gone "missing" on the night of the 14/15 March 2015. The Crown contends that the accused killed her. The accused does not concede that she is dead.
This judgment concerns an objection by counsel for the accused to the admissibility of various representations made by Ms Edwards on a variety of topics in a period spanning late 2013 until 14 March 2015.
The Crown seeks to adduce the evidence pursuant to either or both of ss 65(2)(b) and 66A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). There is no issue about reasonable notice in writing having been given pursuant to s 67 of the Evidence Act. There is also no issue about the evidence falling within the description of evidence of prior representations being admissible pursuant to either, or both of, ss 65(2)(b) and s 66A. The objection is taken upon the basis of relevance (s 55); or alternatively, that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused (s 137).
The representations were made by Ms Edwards to other people in person or by way of messages (including by Facebook). The Crown asserts relevance on a number of topics:

Representations about how happy Ms Edwards was in her relationship with Billy Mills.
Representations about how she loved her new granddaughter.
Representations about her planned school reunion in July 2015, her future overseas holiday, and the wedding of one of her sons in Bali in July 2015.

The above representations are said to be relevant to proof that Ms Edwards is dead and has not just voluntarily disappeared.
Relevant to proof that the accused is responsible for Ms Edwards' death, that he killed her by a deliberate act and that he killed her with the necessary intention,…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1820
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1820
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with the murder of a woman who had been found deceased at her home. The deceased had made representations to friends via text and Facebook messages and these representations were to be tendered as evidence at the trial. The appellant objected to the admissibility of some of the representations on the basis that they were not proximate in time to the alleged offence. The appellant also objected to the admissibility of some of the witness statements on the basis that they were remote in time, lacked specificity, and were unreliable. The court was required to decide whether the representations and witness statements were admissible under the first-hand hearsay exceptions and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to admit them in relation to specific topics.

The court held that the representations were admissible under the first-hand hearsay exceptions. The court noted that the deceased's representations were relevant to the issue of whether the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased and whether the appellant had a good faith belief that the deceased posed an imminent threat to his life. The court held that the representations were sufficiently proximate in time to the alleged offence and that the court should exercise its discretion to admit them in relation to specific topics. The court held that some of the witness statements were also admissible as they were relevant to the issue of motive and were sufficiently specific and reliable. The court held that the remaining witness statements were not admissible as they were too remote in time, lacked specificity, and were unreliable.

The court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the matter to the trial court for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding some of the representations and witness statements and that this error was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. The court held that the appellant was entitled to a new trial in which the representations and witness statements could be properly considered by the jury. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an acquittal as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. The court held that the appellant was entitled to be released on bail pending the new trial.

Orders