R v Helmhout (No 2) - [2000] NSWSC 225

CITATION: R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout & Ors (No.2) [2000] NSWSC 225

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70023/99; 70205/99; 70206/99; 70098/99

HEARING DATE(S): 23-24 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Pieter Egbert Helmhout
Regina v Deborah Joy Davidson
Regina v Mark William Helmhout
Regina v Joanne Rose Delly

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

COUNSEL : C: Mr R D Cogswell SC
PH: Mr A Webb
DD: Mr J S Stratton
MH: Mr G Corr
JD: Mr M Crawford-Fish

SOLICITORS: C: D Knott, Director of Public Prosecutions
PH: Christine Bourke
DD: Brenda Duchen
MH: J R Jeffery, South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Service
JD: G J Piscioneri

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Admissibility of Delly's interview with police - voir dire - not tape recorded - whether accused was threatened - unlawful detainment - probative value

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 108
Evidence Act 1995, ss 84, 138
Crimes Act 1900, Part 10A

DECISION: See para 37

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J
FRIDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2000

70023/99 - REGINA v PIETER EGBERT HELMHOUT
70205/99 - REGINA v DEBORAH JOY DAVIDSON
70206/99 - REGINA v MARK WILLIAM HELMHOUT
70098/99 - REGINA v JOANNE ROSE DELLY

JUDGMENT - Admissibility of Record of Interview with Joanne Rose Delly

1    HER HONOUR: Mr Crawford-Fish, who appears on behalf of the accused, Joanne Rose Delly, made application for me to exclude evidence of an interview between Senior Sergeant Little (as he then was) and his client conducted at the Queanbeyan Police Station on 20 June 1998.
2    It was agreed that this preliminary issue might be determined on a voir dire hearing prior to the Crown’s opening.
3    The grounds of challenge advanced were as follows:

(i) the interview was not tape recorded and is accordingly rendered inadmissible by virtue of the operation of s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act1986 ;
(ii) the making of the admissions was influenced by a threat made to the accused by a police officer and, accordingly, the evidence of the contents of the interview is inadmissible by virtue of s 84(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (“the Act”);
(iii) the accused was unlawfully detained at the time of the admissions and, accordingly, I would reject evidence as to the contents of the interview pursuant to s 138 of the Act;
(iv) the admissions had little probative value and should, in any event, be excluded pursuant to the exercise of discretion.

4    The accused was living in a de facto relationship with Mark Helmhout as at 20 June 1998. She was the mother of two infant children. They were all living at 10/30 Trinculo Place, Queanbeyan on the date of her arrest. Mark Helmhout’s younger brother, Pieter, was staying at those premises at that time.
5    On Friday 19 June 1998, Mark and Pieter Helmhout together with the accused, Joanne Delly, and others attended the funeral of Mark and Pieter’s brother, John. Following the funeral there was a wake held at…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Helmhout (No 2) [2000] NSWSC 225
Case: [2000] NSWSC 225
Decision Date: 25 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The second case of Helmhout involved the defendant, Helmhout, who was facing charges relating to an unlawful detainment and threats made against a police officer. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was the admissibility of an interview conducted by Detective Sergeant Delly with the accused. The interview was not tape recorded, raising questions about whether the accused had been threatened and whether the detention was unlawful. The probative value of the statements made during the interview was also at the heart of the legal debate.

The court was required to determine whether the statements made by Helmhout during the interview with Detective Sergeant Delly could be admitted as evidence. This involved assessing whether the accused had been unlawfully detained and if threats were made during the interview. The court also had to weigh the probative value of the statements against any potential prejudice that might arise from their admission.

In deciding the matter, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the interview, including the lack of a tape recording. The court considered the potential for threats or unlawful detainment and assessed the reliability and probative value of the statements made by Helmhout. Ultimately, the court found that the statements could be admitted as evidence, as the probative value outweighed any potential prejudice. The court also concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that Helmhout had been unlawfully detained or threatened during the interview.

The court ordered that the statements made by Helmhout during the interview with Detective Sergeant Delly be admitted as evidence in the trial. This decision was based on the finding that the probative value of the statements was significant enough to outweigh any potential prejudice, and that there was no evidence to support claims of unlawful detainment or threats.

Orders