R v Fraser - [2003] NSWSC 965

CITATION: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965

HEARING DATE(S): 24/10/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The Crown is directed to call evidence of Dr Skinner in its case and not in reply.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Practice and Procedure - Course of evidence - Crown witness to rebut defence under s 23A of Crimes Act - direction sought under s151(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act - relevant considerations.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 23A, 405A(4), 428A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - ss 150(5), 151(3)
Evidence Act (QLD)

CASES CITED: Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365
Killick v The Queen (1981)) 147 CLR 565
The Queen v Chin (1985) 175 CLR 671
Lawrence v R (1981) 38 ALR 38
Soma v The Queen (2003) 77 ALJR 849
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1
Niven v The Queen (1968) 118 CLR 513
Blewitt v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 503
Heuston (1966) A Crim R 213

PARTIES :
Regina v Steven Anthony Fraser

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70013/03

COUNSEL: M. Tedeschi QC with J. Cash - Crown
J. Stratton SC with G. Ikners - Accused

SOLICITORS: C.K. Smith - Crown
D.C. Chambers & Associates - Accused

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE HOWIE

MONDAY 27 OCTOBER 2003

70013/03 REGINA v STEVEN ANTHONY FRASER
JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: These are my reasons for directing the Crown to call evidence of a witness, Dr Skinner, in its case and not in reply.

2 The accused, Stephen Anthony Fraser, stands trial on three counts of murder, the victims in each of the charges being one of his three young children. When he was arraigned before the jury panel, the accused pleaded not guilty to each count of murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown refused to accept those pleas in full discharge of the indictment. The jury was then empanelled and the trial on the counts of murder proceeded.

3 In his opening to the jury the Crown Prosecutor stated that he anticipated that the real issue in the trial would be the accused’s claim that, at the time of the killing of each of his three children, he was substantially impaired by reason of an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition. This is a defence to a charge of murder under s 23A of the Crimes Act.

4 Defence counsel, Mr Stratton SC, in his opening to the jury told them that, by his pleas of guilty to manslaughter, the accused accepted legal and moral responsibility for the deaths of the children but asked that the jury find him guilty of manslaughter on the basis of the defence of substantial impairment.

5 It is clear, from not only the opening addresses but also the manner in which the trial has been conducted, that the only issue before the jury is whether the accused has proved, on the balance of probabilities,…

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 Fraser

Details

AGLC: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965
Case: [2003] NSWSC 965
Decision Date: 27 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fraser, the respondent was convicted of a serious criminal offence and appealed against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had erred in giving directions to the jury regarding the admissibility of evidence under section 23A of the Crimes Act. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion under section 151(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act when directing the jury regarding the admissibility of the evidence to rebut a defence raised by the respondent.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in the admission of evidence. The court examined whether the trial judge had taken into account all relevant considerations when directing the jury and whether the directions given were appropriate in the circumstances. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion and provided appropriate directions to the jury regarding the admissibility of the evidence. The court found that the directions given were consistent with the statutory requirements and did not prejudice the respondent.

In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed. The conviction of the respondent was upheld, and no further orders were made.

Orders