R v Jones - [2001] TASSC 121

[2001] TASSC 121

CITATION: R v Jones [2001] TASSC 121

PARTIES:  R
  v
  JONES, Ivan John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  164/2000
DELIVERED ON:  16 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  15 October 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ

[Edited version of oral ruling]

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Judicial discretion to admit or exclude - Evidence unfair to admit an improperly obtained secretly taped confession made to prison informer.
Aust Dig [424]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Crown:  M A Stoddart and P R Sherriff
           Accused:  M J Brett and T A Bain
Solicitors:
           Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused:  Douglas & Collins

Judgment ID Number: [2001] TASSC 121
Number of paragraphs: 15

Serial No 121/2001
File No 164/2000

THE QUEEN v IVAN JOHN JONES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX CJ
RULING ON TRIAL 16 October 2001

I have been asked to exclude in the exercise of my discretion evidence of a prisoner, Littlejohn, to whom the accused while in custody of the Hobart Remand Centre, made a number of incriminating admissions. The substance of these statements was that he had killed the deceased in circumstances of sexual harassment which would be likely to reduce a murder finding to one of manslaughter.

The accused had been arrested for murder on 6 November 2000 prior to an interview on that day subsequent to which he was charged with murder and remanded in custody by a Court of Petty Sessions as the law requires. He had first been interviewed on 9 October 2000 and had denied any involvement in or knowledge of the murder. He had actually first drawn the attention of others to the fact that the deceased was lying in his backyard apparently dead. He had been present at his sister's residence in the small town of Lefroy all the previous night when the murder occurred. His happening upon the body about 6.30am was somewhat suspicious and his expressed reason for being there was disputed by other evidence. Between the first interview and his arrest he was known to have made a number of telephone calls to relatives. On one view, the statements he was said to have made in a disguised voice cast the blame otherwise than upon himself; others amounted to assertions that the caller, who did not identify himself but was identified as the accused by the receivers of the phone calls, was the murderer. One witness claimed that he had threatened her in the street and said, "I'll get you like I did the old man."

A torch which was found under the house where the accused had stayed on the night of the murder had been identified as belonging to the deceased and some blood had been found inside the house in the laundry. There appears to have been no forensic evidence of blood or other DNA from the deceased being found on the accused's clothing, belongings or person.

At the time of the arrest, the police had the thinnest of…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2001] TASSC 121
Case: [2001] TASSC 121
Decision Date: 16 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Jones, the defendant Ivan John Jones faced charges related to the murder of an individual. The case was presided over by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The primary legal issue before the court was whether to admit the evidence of a prison informer who had recorded secret conversations with Jones while he was in custody. The informer, Littlejohn, had been instructed by the police to befriend Jones and gather information about the murder. This evidence was critical as it contained admissions from Jones that were inconsistent with the defence's current position and highlighted a propensity to lie.

The court was tasked with balancing the probative value of the informer's evidence against the principles of fairness and public policy considerations. The defence argued that the use of an informer to obtain incriminating statements from Jones, who was already in custody and had refused to speak to police, was unfair and violated statutory safeguards. The court examined precedents where similar tactics had been used, finding that the evidence was inadmissible in some cases but permissible in others depending on the circumstances of its procurement.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the evidence obtained through the informer was not to be admitted. The court found that the police had deliberately used an agent to elicit incriminating statements from Jones after he had been charged and remanded in custody, which was considered unfair and contrary to public interest. This ruling aligned with previous cases where similar undercover operations were deemed improper, particularly when the accused was in custody and had declined to answer police questions. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal safeguards and ethical standards in criminal investigations.

Orders