R v Heaney - [1999] VSCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 113 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
LYNETTE KATHLEEN HEANEY

---

JUDGES: TADGELL, CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 19 July 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14 October 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1999] VSCA 169

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Accomplice warning – Faure warning – Whether conviction open on evidence of witnesses to whom those warnings applied.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr R.A. Elston P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr R.K. Kent, Q.C. Haines & Polites

TADGELL, J. A.:

I agree with Callaway, J.A.

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

The applicant, Lynette Kathleen Heaney, was found guilty in the Supreme Court on one count of murder. After hearing a plea for leniency on her behalf, the learned trial judge sentenced her to 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. She seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.
The grounds of appeal against conviction are:

“1. That the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory in that the evidence presented was tainted and came from unreliable sources.
2. The directions given by the learned trial judge as to the danger of convicting upon the evidence were insufficient to properly convey to the jury the real dangers that existed in this case.
3. The learned trial judge erred in not discharging the jury when inadmissible material was presented to the jury.”

The most convenient course is to give an overview of the facts, then to deal with grounds 2 and 3 and finally to turn to ground 1.

The applicant first met the deceased, Tania Piatkov, in about 1989, when they were aged about 34 and 22 respectively. They formed a lesbian relationship and lived together at several addresses in the Geelong area. For at least six months prior to the time of her death the applicant and the deceased were engaged in trafficking in amphetamine. The applicant was not a user but Miss Piatkov was. She frequently took amphetamine in liquid form and, when it was combined with alcohol, her behaviour could become erratic and violent. There was evidence of such violent conduct when Miss Piatkov, the applicant's sister Coral Cornwell and a man called Chris Hill travelled to Sydney and Brisbane with a large quantity of amphetamine which they intended to sell. It was shortly after Miss Piatkov's return from Queensland that she disappeared.
The Crown case was that the applicant had procured her murder. According to one Anthony Engels the applicant spoke to him about a week or ten days before Miss Piatkov's death and asked him whether he would kill her. A price of $10,000 was discussed and it was arranged that the deceased would come to Engels's house with some amphetamine a couple of days or a week later. That did not occur but about a week later, according to his evidence, the applicant and two others arrived at his house after dark in a car ordinarily used…

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 Heaney

Details

AGLC: R v Heaney [1999] VSCA 169
Case: [1999] VSCA 169
Decision Date: 14 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Heaney, the defendant stood before the court accused of participating in a criminal activity, and the primary dispute centred on the admissibility of the evidence provided by witnesses who had been subject to accomplice and Faure warnings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues at the core of this case revolved around the admissibility of evidence provided by witnesses who had been subject to accomplice warnings, as well as the broader question of whether such warnings rendered the evidence inadmissible under the common law principles concerning accomplice evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the accomplice and Faure warnings impacted the admissibility of the evidence provided by the witnesses in question. The court examined the established legal principles concerning accomplice warnings and the reliability of such evidence. It considered the necessity of these warnings in protecting the rights of the accused while also balancing the need to ensure that justice is served by allowing credible evidence to be presented. Ultimately, the court found that the warnings did not inherently taint the evidence to the extent that it rendered it inadmissible. Instead, the focus was on the reliability and credibility of the evidence provided, which the court determined was sufficiently reliable to be admitted.

The court held that the accomplice and Faure warnings did not preclude the admissibility of the evidence provided by the witnesses. It emphasised that the warnings were procedural safeguards designed to ensure the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the evidence. The court concluded that the evidence was not rendered inadmissible by virtue of the warnings and that the reliability and credibility of the evidence were paramount. Consequently, the court allowed the evidence to be considered in the determination of the defendant's guilt. The final orders of the court confirmed the conviction based on the admissible evidence presented.

Orders