R v Haydon (No 9) - [2005] SASC 23

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HAYDON (No 9)
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Sulan
21 January 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WITNESSES - RE-EXAMINATION
Accused charged with two counts of murder and six counts of assisting offender - ruling in relation to objections made by counsel for the accused to Crown re-examining witness on certain topics.
The Queen v Szach (1980) 23 SASR 504; R v Martin (No 2) (1997) 68 SASR 419; Nominal Defendant v Clements (1960) 104 CLR 476, considered.

R v HAYDON (No 9)
[2005] SASC 23

SULAN J The accused, Mark Ray Haydon (“Haydon”), is charged with two counts of murder and six counts of assisting offenders. At the trial of Haydon, James Spyridon Vlassakis (“Vlassakis”) gave evidence. He was cross-examined over a number of days. Counsel for the prosecution sought to re-examine Vlassakis on a number of topics. Counsel for Haydon objected. I made numerous rulings. These reasons deal with a number of the rulings.
Background
On 20 May 1999, police attended at bank premises at Snowtown. The vault of the bank was locked, but was able to be opened by a handcrafted key. Upon opening the vault, police discovered six barrels which contained bodies and body parts of eight victims. The victims were Michael Gardiner, Barry Lane, Gavin Porter, Troy Youde, Fred Brooks, Gary O’Dwyer, Elizabeth Haydon and David Johnson. The vault also contained items of clothing, plastic bags, surgical and rubber gloves and other paraphernalia.
On the following day, John Justin Bunting (“Bunting”), Robert Joe Wagner (“Wagner”) and the accused were arrested and subsequently charged with the murder of all the persons discovered in the barrels. They were also charged with further counts of murder. It is not necessary to detail all the charges.
On 24 May 1999, Vlassakis was interviewed by the police and, during the course of the interview, amongst many topics discussed he made certain admissions about his involvement and the involvement of the other three accused in the murders and the storage of the bodies at the bank premises. The interview was conducted on the understanding that Vlassakis’ statements would not be led at any trial if he was subsequently charged with offences.
Vlassakis was originally presented jointly with the accused on five of twelve counts of murder. On 13 December, Bunting, Wagner, Haydon and Vlassakis jointly appeared in the Adelaide Magistrates Court for committal. Prior to and whilst the committal proceedings were being heard Vlassakis, through his solicitors and counsel, was engaged in discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions (“Director”). During the committal hearing, the Director agreed to accept pleas of guilty by Vlassakis to four counts of murder. One count of murder of Gavin Porter was to be withdrawn. On 21 June 2001, prior to the conclusion of the committal, Vlassakis appeared in the Supreme Court, and pleaded guilty to four counts of murder. A nolle prosequi was entered on the fifth count. As…

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 Haydon (No 9)

Details

AGLC: R v Haydon (No 9) [2005] SASC 23
Case: [2005] SASC 23
Decision Date: 21 January 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Haydon (No 9), the accused faced two counts of murder and six counts of assisting an offender. The dispute centered on the Crown's attempt to re-examine a witness on certain topics after extensive cross-examination by the defence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that arose involved the scope of re-examination in a criminal trial, particularly where the cross-examination has focused on discrediting the witness. The court had to determine whether the Crown could lead evidence that was not directly relevant to the accused's involvement in the crimes but was pertinent to establishing the broader context of the witness's credibility and the relationships between the accused and co-offenders.

The court found that while the Crown has the right to re-examine a witness, the scope of such re-examination must be confined to matters relevant to the issues in the case. The judge ruled that evidence about anti-paedophile sentiments, the creation of a "spider wall" listing alleged paedophiles, and unrelated murders were not relevant to the charges against Haydon. These topics were excluded as they did not directly implicate Haydon in the crimes he was charged with. The ruling was based on the principle that evidence must be directly relevant to the charges to be admissible and that re-examination should not be used to introduce new or tangential issues.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the Crown's proposed re-examination on the excluded topics was not permissible. The trial proceeded with the evidence that was deemed relevant to the charges against Haydon.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I rejected the submission of the Crown that certain evidence could be led generally to establish the relationship between Vlassakis and Bunting, and to explain Vlassakis’ involvement in the offending and conduct. Conversations in the absence of Haydon of Bunting’s statements to others about paedophiles was excluded. Evidence that Bunting constructed a chart, referred to as “the spider wall”, on which names of people nominated as paedophiles, was excluded. Evidence of vandalism by Bunting and Vlassakis towards people considered to be paedophiles was excluded. Evidence of threatening and abusive phone calls by Bunting in the presence of Vlassakis to people nominated as paedophiles, was excluded.Vlassakis’ evidence at trial Vlassakis gave evidence. He gave evidence of his relationship with Bunting, and how it developed over the period from 1994 until the time of the arrests. He gave evidence of his extensive drug taking over that period and of the events surrounding the murder of Troy Youde. He gave evidence of the events surrounding the murders and subsequent concealment of the bodies of the other victims.Cross-examination Vlassakis was extensively cross-examined by Mrs Shaw. During the course of the cross-examination, he was referred to interviews that he had conducted with the police. Many statements were put to him which he conceded were inconsistent with the evidence that he had given in court. Also put to him was evidence he had given in the Bunting and Wagner trial, which was inconsistent with evidence that he had given during this trial. It was suggested to him that he had told deliberate lies on occasions. He admitted to having lied to the police during the course of his first interview, at a time when he was attempting to negotiate an immunity, and at a time when he had undertaken to tell the police the truth. There was a sustained attack upon his honesty and reliability. It is not necessary, for the purpose of these reasons, to give detailed references to the cross-examination. It is sufficient to observe that counsel for Haydon cross-examined Vlassakis extensively about statements he had made to the police about his role, and the role of others, in the murders of Youde, O’Dwyer, Brooks and Johnson. The cross-examination was aimed at throwing doubt upon his honesty and reliability in respect of evidence which implicated Haydon. There was cross‑examination about his drug taking, with one of its purposes to challenge his reliability. There was detailed cross-examination about the circumstances surrounding his pleas of guilty to four murders, his negotiations with the Director to obtain a benefit from his pleas, and his co-operation and agreement to give evidence.Re-examination Ms Abraham, for the Crown, sought to re-examine Vlassakis about anti-paedophile conversations generally in the absence of Haydon, about details of the spider wall and discussions relating thereto, about conversations about murders generally in the absence of Haydon, including evidence of Bunting having told Vlassakis about the murders of others who Bunting had regarded as paedophiles. In respect of a number of those murders, there is no evidence that Haydon had any involvement or knew about them, either at the time of their commission or subsequently.

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.