R v Haines

Case [2016] SASC 96

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Criminal)

R v HAINES

[2016] SASC 96

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis (ex tempore)

16 June 2016

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - EVIDENCE - OTHER MATTERS

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED - PARTICULAR CASES

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - DEPOSITIONS - OF ABSENT WITNESS - PERSONS UNABLE TO ATTEND THROUGH DEATH OR ILLNESS - GENERALLY

The accused was charged with the murder of her partner on 7 March 2015 in Port Augusta.

At trial, the prosecution intended to tender a written statement of the accused’s mother who was too ill to attend to give evidence, pursuant to s 34KA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). The mother was the eye witness to the events leading to the victim’s death.

This is an application by the accused for the exclusion of the statement pursuant to s 34KD of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA). The applicant submitted that the statement-taking process was such that there was a risk of unreliability making it unfair to admit without the option of cross-examination, due to the way in which the police conducted the interview and the ill health of the mother.

Held, allowing the application:

1.   The statement is excluded due to the forensic disadvantage to the accused.

Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34K, 34KA, 34KD; Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA), referred to.
R v Lobban (2001) 80 SASR 550; R v Christie [1914] AC 545, considered.

R v HAINES
[2016] SASC 96

Criminal

KOURAKIS CJ (ex tempore):

  1. Veronica Joan Haines is charged with the murder of her partner Benjamin Reid on 7 March 2015 at Port Augusta. This is an application by the accused for the exclusion of the written statement of an eye witness to the events leading to his death, which the prosecution proposes to tender on her trial pursuant to s 34KA of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) (the Evidence Act).

  2. The prosecution will lead evidence that Benjamin Reid, who was known as BJ, died of a stab wound to his chest which passed through his lung and the right ventricle of his heart.  The accused has made an admission for the purposes of these proceedings that she wielded the knife which caused that wound and BJ’s death. 

  3. Police and paramedics were called to the home of the accused and the deceased in Russell Street, Port Augusta, at about 9.16 pm on 7 March 2015.  The knife which caused the wound was found in the kitchen sink.  It was a kitchen knife about 250 millimetres in length and with a blade of approximately 120 millimetres.  The deceased was found in the lounge room.  A meat hammer was found under his body. 

  4. Subsequent blood analysis showed that at 1.45 am the next day the accused’s blood alcohol level was 0.104 per cent and contained…

Continue reading R v Haines

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Haines [2016] SASC 96
Case
[2016] SASC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haines dealt with a homicide charge and was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Mrs Haines was the mother of the deceased, Veronica Junior, who had been fatally stabbed by the accused, BJ. The accused was charged with murder and sought to exclude a statement made by Mrs Haines from being admitted as evidence. The statement contained details of the events leading up to the fatal stabbing and was taken under the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). The court had to decide whether to admit this statement as evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act 2001 (SA) and whether it was fair to do so given the potential prejudice it may cause to the accused.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statement could be admitted under s 34KD of the Evidence Act, which allows the court to exclude evidence if it finds that the case for excluding it substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, considering factors such as the risk of undue waste of time and the value of the evidence. The accused also argued that the statement was improperly obtained and should be excluded on those grounds. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the common law discretions preserved by the Evidence Act provided any further basis for excluding the statement.

The court determined that the statement could be admitted as evidence, rejecting the accused's application to exclude it. The court found that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value, and that the statement was not improperly obtained. The court emphasised that the statement contained details that were relevant to the events leading up to the stabbing and was crucial to understanding the context and circumstances of the incident. The court also noted that the potential for undue waste of time was minimal given the relevance of the evidence.

The court's decision to admit the statement as evidence was based on a careful consideration of the provisions of the Evidence Act and the common law discretions. The court concluded that the probative value of the statement outweighed any prejudicial effect, and that there were no grounds for excluding it on the basis of impropriety. The final orders of the court allowed the statement to be admitted as evidence in the proceedings against the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The accused has made an application that I exclude that statement pursuant to s 34KD of the Evidence Act or the common law discretions which it preserves. Section 34KD of the Evidence Act provides:34KD—Court's general discretion to exclude evidence(1)In prescribed proceedings the court may refuse to admit a statement as evidence of a matter stated if—(a) the statement was made otherwise than in oral evidence in the proceedings; and(b) the court is satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, taking account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking account of the value of the evidence.(2)Nothing in this section derogates from any other power of a court to exclude evidence at its discretion (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise).(3)In this section—prescribed proceedings means—(a)proceedings for a criminal offence; or(b)proceedings under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.Mrs Haines’ statements The statements taken by Mrs Haines are in the form of statements of witness prescribed by the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). The first statement, sworn on 8 March 2015 (‘the witness statement’), is signed by Mrs Haines and witnessed by Senior Constable Jason Griffin to whom I will refer, because of a recent promotion, as Sergeant Griffin. Mrs Haines’ statement records that the accused and BJ arrived back from Pilton Street drunk and that they were both angry and abusing each other. According to Mrs Haines’ witness statement ‘[b]oth of them were being as bad as each other, they were both yelling and swearing using “dirty” words towards each other’. The accused told her mother that BJ had tried to rape her and that he had punched her. BJ angrily denied that claim. Mrs Haines described her daughter’s clothes as looking dirty as if she had fallen on the ground. She couldn’t work out what had happened and who to believe. Her witness statement records that BJ then walked into the kitchen where her daughter ‘flew’ at him really fast. She punched him repeatedly before BJ pushed her off with a lot of force which moved her all the way back across the kitchen until she hit the sink. Mrs Haines’ witness statement continues:She grabbed a sharp knife from on the sink as there were a lot of clean dishes that had been washed earlier. As she grabbed the knife she looked at BJ and said, "You wait you prick." I would describe the knife as silver in colour, and the whole knife was about fifteen (15) centimetres long, including the handle. The blade itself was only about ten (10) centimetres long. It was a blade that is fat, as in high, and it was the normal thickness that most knife blades are.At this time BJ pulled a meat hammer out of his pants. He got it out of his pants on the right hand side from the front where his stomach is. About a week or so ago BJ got 'double-banked' (assaulted by numerous people) at the Russell Street house and I know he was carrying this meat hammer around for protection. BJ was holding the hammer in his right hand and it was down by his side. Veronica Junior was still next to the sink and was holding the knife in her right hand like a dagger. Her hand was near her right shoulder and the knife blade was coming out of the bottom of her clenched hand.While this was occurring I was still standing near the laundry door and Veronica Junior and BJ were only two (2) metres from me. The four (4) children in the house were all sitting at the kitchen table or standing by the doorway that I was standing near. BJ said to her, "You're not going to do nothing, you're not going to do it, you're not going to do it." I think he was just trying to be a 'man' and save face in front of me and Veronica Junior. At this point in time BJ and Veronica Junior were roughly only about one (1) to one point five (1.5) metres away from each other. Without warning, other than what had been said, Veronica Junior took one step at BJ and stabbed him with the knife. I saw this and I think the four (4) children would have seen it as well.

Decision

Reasons for decision

KOURAKIS CJ (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.