R v Hall - [2019] ACTSC 350

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Hall
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 350
Hearing Date:	9 December 2019
DecisionDate:	13 December 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [21]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility – pre-trial application to adduce coincidence evidence – series of crimes involving similarities of dress and motor vehicles – whether events are of significant probative value – turns on own facts
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 98, 101, 192A
Cases Cited:	DSJv The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 9; 84 NSWLR 758 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Marley Hall (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel R Khazma (Crown) R Davies (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 167 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Marley Hall has been indicted on 12 counts. They are:

(a)count 1: attempted aggravated burglary of premises in Bonner (BWS liquor store) on 30 December 2018;
(b)count 2: dishonestly driving a motor vehicle on 30 December 2018;
(c)count 3: dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle on 30 December 2018;
(d)count 4: aggravated burglary of premises in Chisholm (Liquorland Chisholm) on 30 December 2018;
(e)count 5: theft of property from the Liquorland Chisholm premises on 30 December 2018;
(f)count 6: aggravated burglary of a property in Yarralumla (Farmer’s Daughter Café) on 30 December 2018;
(g)count 7: theft of property from the Yarralumla Farmer’s Daughter Café on 30 December 2018;
(h)count 8: dishonestly taking a motor vehicle (Farrer) on 30 December 2018;
(i)count 9: attempted aggravated robbery (O’Malley) on 30 December 2018;
(j)count 10: an alternative count 9, attempt to dishonestly take a motor vehicle on 30 December 2018;
(k)count 11: further to count 10 and in the alternative to count 9, assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 30 December 2018; and
(l)count 12: dishonestly driving a motor vehicle on 4 January 2019.

The proceedings are listed for a trial by judge alone commencing on 16 March 2020. The Crown has sought a ruling under s 192A of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) that the Crown be permitted to adduce coincidence evidence in accordance with its Amended Notice of Intention to Adduce Coincidence Evidence (Coincidence Notice) dated 20 November 2019.

Coincidence notice

The Coincidence Notice identifies six events. Each of those events arises out of one or more of the charges on the indictment. It is therefore a case in which the Crown is not seeking to expand the evidence that is led at the trial. Rather, it is seeking to bolster its case on identification of the accused by permitting the evidence that is led to be used for coincidence purposes. Use for coincidence purposes would ensure (if there was any doubt about it) that the evidence in relation to each charge would be cross‑admissible.

The events on the Coincidence Notice are as follows:

(a)event 1 (counts 1 and 2 – BWS Bonner);
(b)event 2 (counts…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2019] ACTSC 350
Case: [2019] ACTSC 350
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hall, the accused was indicted on 12 counts related to multiple offenses occurring on 30 December 2018 and 4 January 2019. The Crown sought to present coincidence evidence to bolster its case on the identification of the accused. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence under the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).

The key legal issues were whether the evidence of similarities in the events would have significant probative value, as required by s 98(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, and whether this probative value would substantially outweigh any prejudicial effect, as per s 101(2) of the Act. The Crown argued that the similarities in the events would make it improbable that they involved different perpetrators and thus should be admissible as coincidence evidence. The accused did not oppose the application regarding some events but contested the admissibility of evidence concerning two specific events.

The court found that the similarities between the events were such that the use of the contested events for coincidence purposes would indeed have significant probative value. The significant similarities in clothing, accessories, and vehicles, particularly between event 4 and events 1, 2, and 3, made it highly improbable that the events involved different perpetrators. The court also noted that the other evidence, including DNA and fingerprint evidence, further supported the admissibility of the contested coincidence evidence. Given the strong circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the events, the court ruled that the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court concluded that the Crown could present the coincidence evidence identified in its Amended Notice of Intention to Adduce Coincidence Evidence. The decision allowed the Crown to use the similarities between the events to bolster its case on the identification of the accused, provided that the evidence was presented in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Evidence Act.

Orders