R v Jobling - [2009] QSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jobling [2009] QSC 279

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

V

SCOTT ANDREW JOBLING

FILE NO/S:

5/07

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

5 August 2009

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

The rulings on admissibility appear throughout these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – whether relationship evidence should be excluded – whether representations made by the deceased are reliable – whether evidence amounts to hearsay – where relevance of statements made are in issue – where probative value of evidence in issue

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603

R v Fulcher [1995] 2 Cr App R 251

R v Iuliano [1971] VR 412

R v Lester[2008] QCA 354

R v Sawoniuk [2000] 2 Cr App R 220

Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334

COUNSEL:

Mr T Glynn QC with Mr J Clarke for the applicant

Mr R Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

David Mills Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Scott Andrew Jobling is charged with the murder of Suzanne Cheryl Standing. This is an application brought by Mr Jobling pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code to have certain evidence excluded that the prosecution proposes to lead.

The disputed evidence concerns the relationship between the accused and the deceased. Part of the evidence consists of statements made by the deceased to the witnesses proposed to be called. Part of the evidence relates to statements alleged to have been made by the accused to witnesses or observations by witnesses of his conduct towards the deceased.

So far as the statements made by the accused and observations as to his conduct are concerned, the objection is based on grounds of relevance.

With respects to statements made by the deceased to the witnesses about the relationship between the deceased and the accused the basis for the objection is that the evidence is hearsay and does not satisfy the necessary preconditions namely:

1. That the conditions of s 93B(2) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) be met; and

2. That the evidence be such that a “relevant inference may logically and reasonably be drawn” from it that advances the Crown case.[1]

[1]per Barwick CJ in Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334 at 339.

The Prosecution Case

The prosecution case against Mr Jobling is based on s 7(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. Beau Ernest Hinschen has been found guilty, after trial, of murdering Ms Standing. It is alleged that the accused procured her murder. Mr Hinschen has given various explanations for his conduct, including a denial that he murdered Ms Standing, but on occasions maintained that he murdered Ms Standing at the behest of Mr Jobling.

According to Mr Hinschen, Mr Jobling wanted Ms Standing killed in order to gain custody of their five year old son Andrew.

It is common ground that the accused and…

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 Jobling

Details

AGLC: R v Jobling [2009] QSC 279
Case: [2009] QSC 279
Decision Date: 8 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jobling involved the Crown prosecuting the respondent, Jobling, on a charge of murder. The dispute in question centred on the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence presented by the Crown, which the defence sought to exclude. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide included the admissibility of evidence relating to the relationship between the deceased and the respondent, the reliability of statements allegedly made by the deceased, and whether such evidence amounted to hearsay. The court had to assess whether the probative value of the contested evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury. This involved considering the relevance of the statements made by the deceased and their potential impact on the case.

In its reasoning, the court examined the nature of the evidence in question and determined that certain pieces of relationship evidence were relevant and could be admitted. The court found that the statements made by the deceased, while hearsay, had sufficient probative value to be considered by the jury. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, and thus, the evidence was admissible. The court’s detailed analysis provided clarity on the criteria for admissibility in cases where the relevance of statements is contested.

The final orders reflected the court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence throughout the reasons. The court permitted the contested evidence to be presented to the jury, thereby ensuring that all relevant material could be considered in reaching a verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

The rulings on admissibility appear throughout these reasons.

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 Jobling [2009] QSC 279
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN V SCOTT ANDREW JOBLING
FILE NO/S:	5/07
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	8 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	5 August 2009
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	The rulings on admissibility appear throughout these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – whether relationship evidence should be excluded – whether representations made by the deceased are reliable – whether evidence amounts to hearsay – where relevance of statements made are in issue – where probative value of evidence in issue Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603 R v Fulcher [1995] 2 Cr App R 251 R v Iuliano [1971] VR 412 R v Lester[2008] QCA 354 R v Sawoniuk [2000] 2 Cr App R 220 Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334
COUNSEL:	Mr T Glynn QC with Mr J Clarke for the applicant Mr R Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	David Mills Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent