Legal Research
Cases
R v Hatfield

R v Hatfield

Case [1999] NSWCCA 340 28 October 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Hatfield [1999] NSWCCA 340

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60569/99

HEARING DATE(S): 19 October 1999
22 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Irena Hatfield

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hidden J at 64

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Grove J

COUNSEL: RD Ellis - Crown
P Byrne SC; SJ Stanton - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
SA Teen - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law; Murder; Stay of Proceedings

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

- 31 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60569/99

SULLY J
HULME J
HIDDEN J

Thursday, 28 October 1999

REGINA -v- Irena HATFIELD

JUDGMENT

1    SULLY J: I agree with Hulme J.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60569/99

SULLY J
HULME J
HIDDEN J

Thursday, 28 October 1999

REGINA -v- Irena HATFIELD
JUDGMENT
2 HULME J: These Reasons arise out of an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912, against a decision of Grove J given on 30 September 1999, refusing an application for a permanent stay of proceedings against the Applicant on a charge of murder.
3    The death, the subject of the charge was of the Applicant’s husband and occurred on or about 19 April 1985 at Maroubra. An inquest into his death was held on 17 June 1986. The charge against the Applicant was preferred on 13 June 1997. The Applicant was committed for trial on 18 September 1998, arraigned on 25 March last and 8th November next is scheduled as the day for commencement of that trial. The application for a stay of proceedings was made on 6 August 1999 and Grove J made his decision refusing a stay on 30 September last. The appeal was heard on 22 October.
4    Most of the facts and evidence against which Grove J’s decision was made are recounted or summarised in His Honour’s reasons and it is convenient to quote from them:-

“4 Shortly after midnight on 19-20 April the accused telephoned police and reported that she had just tried to awaken her husband whom she then observed had been shot. She thought he was dead. Police and ambulance were despatched to the matrimonial home at 47 Chester Avenue, Maroubra. Inspection revealed the body lying on a lounge covered by a blanket to the chest. A small hole was visible in the blanket surrounded by apparent bloodstains. Three wounds were visible on the head of the deceased.

5 Investigation demonstrated that the deceased had been shot with .22 calibre ammunition. One projectile had entered the chest area. … Later weighing of fragments led to an estimate that four projectiles had entered the head even though observations had noted three wounds. Four cartridge cases were located in the lounge room. No weapon was found in the vicinity. In due course police took possession of the clothing of the deceased and also that…

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 Hatfield

Details

AGLC: R v Hatfield [1999] NSWCCA 340
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 340
Decision Date: 28 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Hatfield was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Hatfield, was charged with the murder of an individual. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence that Hatfield sought to exclude from the trial proceedings. The case raised questions about the application of the stay of proceedings provisions in the context of a murder trial.

The court was required to determine whether the exclusion of specific evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice. Hatfield's legal team argued that the evidence in question was obtained in violation of his rights and should therefore be excluded under the common law rule. The prosecution contended that the evidence was relevant and necessary for a fair trial, and its exclusion would not necessarily lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered the provisions of the relevant statutes and the common law principles applicable to the stay of proceedings. It was held that the evidence in question was indeed obtained in breach of Hatfield's rights, but its exclusion would not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court reasoned that the remaining admissible evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to reach a fair and just verdict. Therefore, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The court ordered that the trial proceed as scheduled, with the inadmissible evidence excluded from consideration by the jury. Hatfield's defence team was directed to make an appropriate objection at trial to ensure the jury was aware of the exclusion. The prosecution was also directed to ensure that the inadmissible evidence was not presented to the jury in any form.

Orders