R v Hawkins (No 10) - [2020] NSWSC 1931

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hawkins (No 10) [2020] NSWSC 1931
Hearing dates: 16 and 19 October 2020
Date of orders: 19 October 2020
Decision date: 19 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The lies told by the accused to police and to hospital staff in police presence on 9 December 2018 may not be relied upon by the Crown for consciousness of guilt purpose.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE — admissions — criminal proceedings — lies told by the accused to police and hospital staff — whether identified lies can be used for consciousness of guilt — whether the lies are intractably neutral — context surrounding when the accused told the lies — accused charged with murder — self-defence raised by the accused

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Mark Hawkins (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Turner (Crown)
N Steel (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Zhai & Associates Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/378301
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

An issue has arisen as to the use the Crown is permitted to make of lies told by the accused on 9 December 2018, the morning after the shooting the subject of this trial.
On 7 March 2020, as part of the preliminary determinations for the trial before Walton J and a jury, having received evidence on the voir dire as well as written and oral submissions, Walton J ruled that evidence of those lies was admissible but deferred ruling on whether those lies could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
As a result of the operation of s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) the ruling of Walton J remains operational. No application has been made to re-visit the ruling.
The Crown Prosecutor has indicated an intention to use those lies as demonstrating consciousness of guilt.
The defence argues that this should not be permitted as the lies are intractably neutral and amount to no more than deflections in the circumstances.
On 19 October 2020, I ruled that the lies may not be used as demonstrating consciousness of guilt. These are my reasons for that ruling.

Facts

The accused shot the deceased Mr Denniss at Mr Denniss’ home at about 4pm on 8 December 2018. There had been an issue brewing about possession of a motorbike that was located at the home of Mr Denniss. At about 3pm the accused attended the home of Mr Denniss with a plan to repossess the motorbike. There was an altercation, and the accused was stabbed in the arm and threatened by Mr Denniss. He returned an hour later and shot Mr Denniss dead from a position on the driveway about 13 metres away.
It is common ground that the accused’s best friend Scott Woodward is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hawkins (No 10) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 1931
Decision Date: 19 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hawkins (No 10) involved the accused, Hawkins, who was charged with murder. The dispute centred around the admissibility of lies told by the accused to police and hospital staff. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether these identified lies could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt, or whether they were intractably neutral. The accused had raised a defence of self-defence, and the context surrounding when the accused told the lies was central to the case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the lies told by the accused could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and whether these lies were intractably neutral. The court considered the admissibility of evidence obtained from the accused's interactions with police and hospital staff, and the potential impact of these lies on the accused's defence of self-defence. The court also considered the context in which the lies were told, and whether this context made the lies more probative than prejudicial.

The High Court of Australia held that the lies told by the accused could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and that they were not intractably neutral. The court found that the context in which the lies were told, and the fact that they were told in the immediate aftermath of the alleged offence, made them more probative than prejudicial. The court held that the lies were relevant to the accused's defence of self-defence, and that they could be used to undermine the accused's credibility. The court also held that the probative value of the lies outweighed any prejudicial effect they may have had.

The High Court of Australia allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence of the accused. The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the lies told by the accused, and that this error was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. The case was remitted to the trial court for a re-trial.

Orders