R v Hudson - [2014] QDC 310

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hudson [2014] QDC 310

PARTIES:

R
v

HUDSON, Sean Christopher

FILE NO/S:

DC No 99 of 2014

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2014

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The evidence in relation to robberies on 28 October 1997 and 5 November 1997 is not admissible.

2. The statement of Tracey Cornford, dated 7 February 2013, tendered at the defendant’s committal hearing on 15 November 2013, may be read as evidence at the defendant’s trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTION – where defendant charged with armed robbery – where defendant had two prior convictions for armed robbery – where Crown sought to use prior convictions as similar fact evidence – where similarities identified included a business being robbed, a middle aged female staff member being subjected to threats, a gun being used, the robberies being successful and the getaway being facilitated by a vehicle – whether evidence from previous robberies had strong degree of probative force so as to justify admission

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where witness statement was tendered at the committal hearing – where witness died before the commencement of trial – where parties agree that the formal requirements in s 110A(13) of Justices Act 1886 are satisfied – where witness was accomplice to acts charged – where defence submitted witness may have motive to lie – whether it would be unfair to the defendant to admit the statement of the witness

Criminal Code (Qld), s 590AA

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 110A(13)

Recording of Evidence Act 1962 (Qld), s 10

BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499, considered
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461, considered
Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303, considered
R v Burke [2009] QDC 334, cited
R v Delgado-Guerra [2002] 2 Qd R 384, cited
R v Higgins [2006] QDC 369, cited
R v Martin [2009] QDC 324, cited
R v Schuurs & Semyraha [1999] QSC 176, considered
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered

R v Wallis [2011] QDC 25, cited

COUNSEL:

J Phillips for the Crown

S Bain for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown

Mulcahy Ryan Lawyers for the defendant

The defendant is charged with armed robbery in company. There are applications by the Crown and the defence for rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code. Neither party filed an application in compliance with rule 42 Criminal Practice Rules 1999. The Crown’s application seeks a ruling that evidence of two armed robbery offences committed by the defendant in 1997 to which…

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 Hudson

Details

AGLC: R v Hudson [2014] QDC 310
Case: [2014] QDC 310
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hudson, the defendant was charged with armed robbery. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s two prior convictions for armed robbery, arguing that these instances shared a significant number of similarities with the current offence. These similarities included the nature of the business targeted, the gender and age of the staff member threatened, the use of a firearm, the successful execution of the robbery, and the mode of escape, which in each case involved the use of a vehicle. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the probative force of the prior convictions was sufficiently strong to warrant their admission as evidence.

The court considered the potential probative value of the evidence of prior convictions against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the evidence had a significant degree of probative force due to the numerous similarities between the prior convictions and the current charge. However, the court also had to consider the risk of unfair prejudice, including whether it would be unfair to admit the statement of Tracey Cornford, an accomplice who had died before the trial began. The court concluded that while the evidence of the prior convictions was relevant, the potential for unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value. Additionally, the court found that the statement of Tracey Cornford, which was tendered at the committal hearing and satisfied the formal requirements of s 110A(13) of the Justices Act 1886, could be admitted at the trial, as the defence had not presented a compelling argument that it would be unfair to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The evidence in relation to robberies on 28 October 1997 and 5 November 1997 is not admissible.

2. The statement of Tracey Cornford, dated 7 February 2013, tendered at the defendant’s committal hearing on 15 November 2013, may be read as evidence at the defendant’s trial.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Hudson [2014] QDC 310
PARTIES:	R v HUDSON, Sean Christopher
FILE NO/S:	DC No 99 of 2014
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2014
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The evidence in relation to robberies on 28 October 1997 and 5 November 1997 is not admissible. 2. The statement of Tracey Cornford, dated 7 February 2013, tendered at the defendant’s committal hearing on 15 November 2013, may be read as evidence at the defendant’s trial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – PROPENSITY EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTION – where defendant charged with armed robbery – where defendant had two prior convictions for armed robbery – where Crown sought to use prior convictions as similar fact evidence – where similarities identified included a business being robbed, a middle aged female staff member being subjected to threats, a gun being used, the robberies being successful and the getaway being facilitated by a vehicle – whether evidence from previous robberies had strong degree of probative force so as to justify admission CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where witness statement was tendered at the committal hearing – where witness died before the commencement of trial – where parties agree that the formal requirements in s 110A(13) of Justices Act 1886 are satisfied – where witness was accomplice to acts charged – where defence submitted witness may have motive to lie – whether it would be unfair to the defendant to admit the statement of the witness Criminal Code (Qld), s 590AA Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 110A(13) Recording of Evidence Act 1962 (Qld), s 10 BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499, considered Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461, considered Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303, considered R v Burke [2009] QDC 334, cited R v Delgado-Guerra [2002] 2 Qd R 384, cited R v Higgins [2006] QDC 369, cited R v Martin [2009] QDC 324, cited R v Schuurs & Semyraha [1999] QSC 176, considered R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered R v Wallis [2011] QDC 25, cited
COUNSEL:	J Phillips for the Crown S Bain for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown Mulcahy Ryan Lawyers for the defendant