R v Helmhout - [2000] NSWSC 208

Reported Decision: 112 A Crim R 10

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout [2000] NSWSC 208

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70023/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25/2/00, 03/03/00, 10/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 March 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Pieter Egbert Helmhout
(Accused)

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

COUNSEL : C: Mr R D Cogswell SC
A: Mr A Webb

SOLICITORS: C: D Knott, Director of Public Prosecutions
A: Christine Bourke

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Admissibility of evidence - voir dire - whether police failed to comply with Regulation - state of intoxication - whether unfair to use interview in evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, Part 10A
Crimes (Detention after Arrest) Regulation 1998, cls.5,28 (Parts 4 & 5)
Evidence Act 1995, ss85,90,138,165

CASES CITED: R v Mark Helmhout, unrep, 23/02/00
R v Donnelly (1997) 96 ACrimR 432
R v Ostojic (1978) 18 SASR 188
R v Smith (1992) 58 SASR 491
R v Garth (1994) 73 ACrimR 215
The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159

DECISION: See para 41

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J
22 MARCH 2000

70023/99 - REGINA v PIETER EGBERT HELMHOUT
JUDGMENT - Admissibility of ERISP with Pieter Helmhout

1 HER HONOUR: On 21 February 2000, the accused, Pieter Egbert Helmhout, was arraigned before me jointly with Mark William Helmhout, Deborah Joy Davidson and Joanne Rose Delly, upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Paul Joseph Harris on 20 June 1998. Mark William Helmhout was also charged with the murder. Both Deborah Joy Davidson and Joanne Rose Delly were charged with being accessories after the fact to the murder. A jury was empanelled on that day. Prior to the Crown opening, I was invited to deal with a number of preliminary issues as to the admissibility of evidence. In the case of each accused, objection was taken to the tender by the Crown of an electronically recorded interview.
2 As a result of the ruling I made concerning the admissibility of the interview between Mark Helmhout and police, Mr Webb made an application for a separate trial in relation to his client, Pieter Helmhout. That application was successful and, pursuant to s 365(2) of the Crimes Act, 1900 (“the Act”), I directed that the count against Pieter Helmhout be severed and that Pieter Egbert Helmhout be tried separately. The jury which had been empanelled in the joint trial was discharged on 28 February 2000 without verdict in relation to Mark Helmhout, Pieter Helmhout and Deborah Davidson. The jury were directed to return a verdict of acquittal with respect to Joanne Delly. The Crown indicated that it would proceed with the trial of Mark William Helmhout and Deborah Joy Davidson and it was agreed that the trial of Pieter Helmhout would immediately follow the conclusion of those proceedings.
3 On 25 February 2000, I commenced a voir dire hearing as to the admissibility of an electronically recorded interview between Pieter Helmhout and Detectives Nixon and Squire. That hearing was…

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 Helmhout

Details

AGLC: R v Helmhout [2000] NSWSC 208
Case: [2000] NSWSC 208
Decision Date: 22 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Helmhout, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was whether the statements made by the defendant during a police interview could be admitted as evidence. The defendant claimed that the police had failed to comply with a regulation that required them to record the interview if the person was in a state of intoxication. The defendant argued that the failure to record the interview rendered the evidence inadmissible and unfair.

The court needed to determine whether the failure to comply with the regulation meant that the interview could not be used as evidence. The court considered whether the regulation was mandatory or directory, and whether the failure to comply with it resulted in a significant procedural irregularity that could prejudice the fairness of the trial. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's state of intoxication affected the admissibility of the evidence.

The court found that the regulation was mandatory and that the failure to comply with it was a significant procedural irregularity that could potentially prejudice the fairness of the trial. However, the court also found that the defendant's state of intoxication did not affect the admissibility of the evidence. The court held that the failure to comply with the regulation did not render the evidence inadmissible, as the defendant had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the failure. The court found that the evidence was admissible and could be used against the defendant.

The court ordered that the evidence be admitted and that the trial continue. The defendant was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. The court's decision highlights the importance of complying with regulations in the administration of justice, but also recognises that the failure to comply with a regulation does not necessarily mean that evidence will be excluded.

Orders