R v Haydon (No 4)

Case [2005] SASC 18

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v HAYDON (No 4)

Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Sulan

21 January 2005

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

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - WARRANTS

Accused charged with two counts of murder and six counts of assisting offenders - application by accused to exclude evidence of conversations between the accused and police prior to his arrest on 21 May 1999 - application to exclude evidence obtained by police from, and observations by police at accused's house prior to his arrest - whether there had been a breach of s 74D of the Summary Offences Act 1953 - whether the accused voluntarily submitted himself to the interviews - whether evidence should be excluded on the grounds that the police did not caution the accused - whether evidence of conversation with the accused in breach of s 74D should be admitted in the interests of justice - application of s 74E of the Summary Offences Act - discussion of public policy and general unfairness discretion.

Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 74D, s 74E, s 67(4)(a)(iii); Firearms Act 1977 (SA), s 32(3), referred to.
Question of Law Reserved (No 1) of 1998) 70 SASR 281, applied.
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; R v Ireland (1971-1972) 126 CLR 321; R v King & Pitson (No 2) (1998) LSJS 111; R v Long & McDonnell (2002) LSJS 193, discussed.
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266; Robinett v The Police (2000) 78 SASR 85; R v Buetti (1997) 70 SASR 370; R v Day (2002) 82 SASR 85; R v Dolan (1992) 58 SASR 501; R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24; R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; R v Zotti (2002) 82 SASR 554; Lai v The Queen (2003-2004) 180 FLR 190, considered.

R v HAYDON (No 4)
[2005] SASC 18

  1. SULAN J               The accused, Mark Ray Haydon (“Haydon”), is charged with two counts of murder and six counts of assisting offenders.  The counts as they appear in order on the information are as follows:

    Count 1:  Assisting Offenders

    It is alleged that Haydon assisted John Justin Bunting (“Bunting”) and Robert Wagner (“Wagner”) to escape apprehension or prosecution in respect of the murder of Michael James Gardiner.

    Count 2:  Assisting Offenders

    It is alleged that Haydon assisted Bunting and Wagner to escape apprehension or prosecution in respect of the murder of Barry Wayne Lane.

    Count 3:  Assisting Offenders

    It is alleged that Haydon assisted Bunting and Wagner to escape apprehension or prosecution in respect of the murder of Gavin Allan Porter.

    Count 4:  Murder

    It is alleged that, together with Bunting and Wagner and James Spyridon Vlassakis (“Vlassakis”), Haydon murdered Troy William Youde.

    Count 5:  Assisting Offenders

    It is alleged that…

Continue reading R v Haydon (No 4)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Haydon (No 4) [2005] SASC 18
Case
[2005] SASC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Haydon (No 4), the accused, Haydon, sought to exclude evidence of conversations between himself and police prior to his arrest on 21 May 1999. The evidence in question was obtained from interactions with police officers Stone, McCoy and Hilliard, and related to the conversations that occurred at Haydon's residence before his arrest. The legal issues before the court involved whether there had been a breach of section 74D of the Summary Offences Act 1953, whether Haydon voluntarily submitted himself to the interviews, and whether evidence should be excluded on the grounds that the police did not caution Haydon. Additionally, the court had to consider whether evidence of conversations in breach of section 74D should be admitted in the interests of justice, and apply section 74E of the Summary Offences Act, which concerns public policy and general unfairness discretion.

The court considered the circumstances of the interviews and determined that there was no breach of section 74D of the Summary Offences Act 1953. It was found that Haydon had voluntarily submitted himself to the interviews, and the evidence was not excluded on the basis that the police did not caution him. The court further examined whether the evidence of the conversations in breach of section 74D should be admitted in the interests of justice. The court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as it was relevant to the case and the admission of the evidence did not unfairly prejudice Haydon's right to a fair trial. The court also considered the application of section 74E of the Summary Offences Act, which relates to public policy and general unfairness discretion, and found that the evidence should be admitted.

The court's final orders were that the evidence of the conversations between Haydon and police officers prior to his arrest on 21 May 1999 should not be excluded. The evidence was deemed relevant and admissible, and the court found that its admission did not unfairly prejudice Haydon's right to a fair trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 13 January 1999, Stone and McCoy attended at Blackham and spoke to Haydon. Evidence of that conversation is sought to be excluded.Background The accused was arrested on 21 May 1999 after police discovered six barrels in a bank vault at Snowtown. The barrels contained bodies and body parts of eight people. Included in one of the barrels was the body of Elizabeth Haydon. Also arrested were Bunting and Wagner. Vlassakis was arrested some days later. On 8 September 2003, Bunting was convicted by a jury of eleven counts of murder, and Wagner was convicted of seven. At the commencement of his trial, Wagner had pleaded guilty to three counts of murder. The murders of which they were convicted included Michael James Gardiner, Barry Wayne Lane, Gavin Allan Porter, Troy William Youde, Frederick Robert Brooks, Gary O’Dwyer, Elizabeth Haydon and David Terence Johnson. Haydon had been jointly charged with Bunting and Wagner. Prior to the jury being empanelled, Martin J stayed the trial in respect of all charges of murder alleged against Haydon, other than the murders of Clinton Trezise, Troy Youde and Elizabeth Haydon, which he ordered to be separately tried. The Bunting and Wagner trial commenced. Subsequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions (“Director”) filed an information charging Haydon with the offences I have set out. Vlassakis had been charged with five counts of murder jointly with Bunting, Wagner and Haydon. During the committal proceedings he agreed to plead guilty to four counts of murder and to give evidence at the trials of his co-accused. Vlassakis’ offer to plead to four of the five counts of murder was accepted by the Director. He pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to four counts of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty six years. He gave evidence in the trial of Bunting and Wagner, and is due to give evidence in Haydon’s trial. At the commencement of the trial on 4 July 2004, the accused made an application that the counts of murder be heard separately, and that they also be heard separately from the counts of assisting offenders. I determined that all counts should be heard together. After that ruling, this application proceeded. The officer who was assigned the investigation into Elizabeth Haydon’s disappearance was Stone. During the course of the investigation he worked with other officers, including Hilliard, Cocks and McCoy. The officer in charge of the squad who was assigned the task of investigating the disappearance of Elizabeth Haydon was Detective Sergeant Lawton (“Lawton”). At the time of the disappearance of Elizabeth Haydon, Detective Sergeant Patterson (“Patterson”), who was then a member of the Major Crime Investigation Section, had been conducting an investigation into the disappearance of Barry Lane and Thomas Trevilyan. During the course of his investigation, he became aware of the Elizabeth Haydon investigation. The Barry Lane investigation involved investigating the conduct of Wagner and later Bunting. Their names were also common to the Elizabeth Haydon investigation. Eventually, Stone and McCoy were seconded to the Major Crime Investigation Task Force, and all investigations were brought under the umbrella of the Major Crime Section. At the commencement of inquiries, the investigations were kept separate. Officers from the Elizabeth CIB, Major Crime Section and Physical Evidence Section all gave evidence on the voir dire. No evidence was called on behalf of the accused.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SULAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SULAN J

Full text does not contain this section.