R v Jamie Schofield - [2013] ACTSC 247

R V JAMIE SCHOFIELD
[2013] ACTSC 247 (21 November 2013)

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – tendency and coincidence evidence – prior conduct – general principles – weighing probative value and prejudicial effect – Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 97 and 101
TRIAL – Roles of judge and jury – tendency and coincidence evidence – general principles – weighing probative value and prejudicial effect – Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 97 and 101

Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), s 356
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 55-56, 97-101, 108, 192A

R v Cittadini (2008) 189 A Crim R 492
R v Fletcher (2005) 156 A Crim R 308
R v Ford (2009) 201 A Crim R 451
R v Harker [2004] NSWCCA 427
R v Johnston (2012) 6 ACTLR 297
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457
R v Saunders [2012] ACTSC 143
R v Smith (2008) 190 A Crim R 8
R v Zhang (2005) 158 A Crim R 504

Odgers, S, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 10th ed, 2012)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 63 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 21 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R
v
JAMIE SCHOFIELD

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  21 November 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The evidence listed in 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and (b)(i) and (ii) of the Tendency Notice, filed by the prosecution, be inadmissible as tendency evidence.

The evidence listed in 2(a)(iv) of the Tendency Notice be admissible as tendency evidence.

In January 2011, Trevor Schofield was born to Tiffany Harber, who at the time was living with Jamie Schofield. Staff from Care and Protection Services, of the Community Services Directorate, investigated what was said to be non-accidental injuries found by CARU.

In due course, Jamie Schofield was charged with two offences of assaulting Trevor and occasioning him actual bodily harm, and, in the alternative, two offences of common assault on Trevor. The prosecution case was that Ms Harber said that the injuries were inflicted by Mr Schofield and she would give evidence of his behaviour in respect to Trevor.

Mr Schofield’s trial for these offences commenced on 20 November 2013. After he was arraigned a preliminary issue arose.

The prosecution had, on 18 November 2013, served on Mr Schofield’s lawyers a notice under s 97 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) of its intention to adduce certain evidence of tendencies, which it set out in the notice.

Mr A Hopkins, counsel for Mr Schofield, objected to the admission of that evidence.

The admission of tendency evidence is regulated by ss 97-101 of the Evidence Act. Relevant to these proceedings are ss 97 and 101 which are relevantly in the following terms:

97 The tendency rule

(1) Evidence of the character, reputation or conduct of a person, or a tendency that a person has or had, is not admissible to prove that a person…

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 Jamie Schofield

Details

AGLC: R v Jamie Schofield [2013] ACTSC 247
Case: [2013] ACTSC 247
Decision Date: 21 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jamie Schofield involved the respondent, Jamie Schofield, who was charged with multiple offences including serious sexual offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain prior conduct evidence, which the prosecution sought to introduce as tendency evidence. The trial took place in a relevant Australian court, where the judge and jury had distinct roles in evaluating the evidence. The primary legal issues were whether certain evidence could be admitted under the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), specifically sections 97 and 101, which pertain to the admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence. The court had to weigh the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect.

The court examined each piece of evidence meticulously, applying the principles set forth in the Evidence Act. It assessed whether the evidence had sufficient probative value to be relevant to a fact in issue, and if so, whether its admission would have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the respondent. The court found that the evidence listed in points 2(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) and 2(b)(i) and (ii) of the Tendency Notice lacked sufficient probative value when weighed against their prejudicial impact and thus ruled them inadmissible. However, the court determined that the evidence listed in point 2(a)(iv) of the Tendency Notice was admissible because it met the criteria for admissibility as tendency evidence.

The court's decision hinged on a careful analysis of the specific circumstances and the statutory requirements. The judge and jury were guided by the legal standards to ensure a fair trial. The outcome was that certain pieces of prior conduct evidence were deemed inadmissible, while one piece was allowed. The court's ruling was based on a detailed assessment of each piece of evidence's relevance and prejudicial effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The evidence listed in 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and (b)(i) and (ii) of the Tendency Notice, filed by the prosecution, be inadmissible as tendency evidence.

2. The evidence listed in 2(a)(iv) of the Tendency Notice be admissible as tendency evidence.

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.