R v Hammond - [2018] NSWDC 503

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hammond [2018] NSWDC 503
Hearing dates: 15 – 16 October 2018
Date of orders: 16 October 2018
Decision date: 15 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hunt DCJ
Decision:
The probative value does not outweigh the unfair prejudice and so evidence will not be admitted

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Tendency and coincidence evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Relevance – Probative value - Robbery with an offensive weapon – Knife – Generic robberies
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Evidence Act
Cases Cited: AW v R [2009] NSWCCA 1
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 289.
Illievski v R and Nolan v R [2018] NSWCCA 164
R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40
R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 302
R v Gale & Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174
R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174
R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236 at [77]
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Ian Brian Hammond
Representation:
Counsel:
M Juhasz – Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown

File Number(s): 2017/178071

Judgment

On 15 October 2018, Ian Brian Hammond was arraigned before me on an indictment alleging one offence in breach of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW that on 12 June 2017 at Flinders in the State of New South Wales being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife robbed Simon Shehata of certain property, namely a sum of money, a gold "Citizen" watch, and Antenex (Valium) tablets, the property of Simon Shehata. He pleaded not guilty.
Before empanelling the jury, I was invited by the parties to determine a number of linked matters in relation to the admissibility of evidence. Having considered evidence and submissions, I made a number of rulings on 15 October 2018, and these are the reasons for those rulings as made.
The Crown makes application that the Court admit identified evidence on both a coincidence and tendency basis pursuant to notices served pursuant to ss 98 and 97 of the Evidence Act. No issues were taken or arose concerning the notice or service of either notice.
Mr Hammond has pleaded guilty and awaits sentence in this Court in relation to a robbery of a sum of money at Cash Converters Warrawong on 14 June 2017 (the Warrawong Robbery).
In short, the Crown seeks to lead evidence of that robbery and Mr Hammond's admission of guilt in relation to it both for coincidence and tendency purposes. It is proposed, if it ruled admissible, that the key features of that robbery and Mr Hammond's admission of guilt be proved by virtue of a statement of agreed facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act. .
The Crown contends that Mr Hammond was the person who committed the Flinders robbery, which is the robbery on the indictment of 12 June 2017. He was arrested very shortly after the commission of the Warrawong robbery on 14 June 2017 at…

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 Hammond

Details

AGLC: R v Hammond [2018] NSWDC 503
Case: [2018] NSWDC 503
Decision Date: 15 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hammond, the defendant was charged with armed robbery involving the use of a knife. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of three other robberies, which they claimed were committed by the defendant using a similar modus operandi. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence of the other robberies was admissible as it pertained to the defendant's tendency to commit armed robberies and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

The court considered the admissibility of tendency evidence under section 97 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The primary consideration was the relevance of the evidence and whether it had sufficient probative value to justify its admission. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice to the defendant. The prosecution argued that the evidence of the other robberies showed a pattern of behaviour that was relevant to the current charge, whereas the defence contended that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and could unfairly influence the jury against the defendant.

The court found that while the evidence of the other robberies could indicate a tendency, it did not sufficiently establish the defendant's involvement in those incidents to have significant probative value in the current case. The court concluded that the potential for unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Consequently, the trial judge ruled that the evidence of the other robberies would not be admitted. The court's decision was based on the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent the jury from being swayed by potentially misleading or prejudicial information.

Orders

Orders of the court

The probative value does not outweigh the unfair prejudice and so evidence will not be admitted

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hammond [2018] NSWDC 503
Hearing dates:	15 – 16 October 2018
Date of orders:	16 October 2018
Decision date:	15 October 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hunt DCJ
Decision:	The probative value does not outweigh the unfair prejudice and so evidence will not be admitted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Tendency and coincidence evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Relevance – Probative value - Robbery with an offensive weapon – Knife – Generic robberies
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 NSW Evidence Act
Cases Cited:	AW v R [2009] NSWCCA 1 El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 289. Illievski v R and Nolan v R [2018] NSWCCA 164 R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40 R v BP [2010] NSWCCA 302 R v Gale & Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174 R v Matonwal & Amood [2016] NSWCCA 174 R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236 at [77]
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Ian Brian Hammond
Representation:	Counsel: M Juhasz – Offender Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
File Number(s):	2017/178071