R v Jones & Ors (No6) - [2007] NSWSC 1157

CITATION: R v Jones & Ors (No6) [2007] NSWSC 1157

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Objection overruled.

CATCHWORDS: Objection to cross-examination of two Crown witnesses upon their prior convictions

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act

CASES CITED: Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1
R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455
R v Fowler NSWSC, 15 May 1997
R v Lewis NSWSC, 20 June 1996
RPS v The Queen (unreported NSWCCA, 13 August 1997)

PARTIES: Regina
Adam Jones
Samuel Jones
Elizabeth Jean Jones
Lydia Jones
Adam Samuel Jones

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/2009; 2006/2010; 2006/2011; 2006/2012; 2006/2007

COUNSEL: J Pickering (Crown)
D Price (Adam Jones) (Accused)
D Stewart (Samuel Jones) (Accused)
G Whitehead (Elizabeth Jones) (Accused)
C Watson (Lydia Jones) (Accused)
W Terracini SC/J Trevallion (Adam Samuel Jones) (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions)
Conaghan Hunter P/L (Adam Jones)
Ross Hill & Co (Samuel Jones)
Neil J O'Connor & Associates (Elizabeth Jones)
Ian Rolfe Solicitor (Lydia Jones)
Adamson Solicitors (Adam Samuel Jones)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

WEDNESDAY 11 APRIL 2007

2006/2009 - Regina v Adam JONES
2006/2010 - Regina v Samuel JONES
2006/2011 - Regina v Elizabeth Jean JONES
2006/2012 - Regina v Lydia JONES
2006/2007 - Regina v Adam Samuel JONES
JUDGMENT – (No 6) Objection to cross-examination of Noah Smith Snr and John Smith upon their prior convictions

1 His Honour: I have already permitted counsel to cross-examine the witnesses Noah Smith Snr (also known as Noah Smith Snr) and John Smith upon their prior convictions. These are my reasons for doing so.

2 Noah Smith Snr and his father John Smith have each given evidence of having witnessed critical parts of the events which culminated in the death of William Smith. The deceased was the son of John Smith and the brother of Noah Smith Snr. Noah Smith Snr gave evidence from which it can be inferred that three of the accused, namely Sam Jones Snr, Adam Jones Snr and Adam Jones Jnr respectively, were involved in the attack upon the deceased. He said that he could see that Sam Jones Snr and Adam Jones Snr were both armed at the time. He also alleged that Sam Jones Snr struck him in the forehead with an iron bar causing an injury which required stitches.

3 John Smith gave evidence to similar effect. He also nominated Sam Jones Snr, Adam Jones Snr and Adam Jones Jnr as having been involved in the attack upon the deceased.

4 Both witnesses also gave evidence denying that either of them, or any other members of their family, was armed with a weapon that night. Each of the other members of the Smith family who have given evidence have similarly denied that any member of their family was armed or used a weapon during the course of the fatal incident. John Smith’s grandson, Noah Smith Jnr, however told the police that his grandfather was in possession…

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 & Ors (No6)

Details

AGLC: R v Jones and Ors (No6) [2007] NSWSC 1157
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1157
Decision Date: 11 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones & Ors (No6) involved multiple defendants who were facing various criminal charges. The primary issue before the court was an objection raised by the defence to the cross-examination of two Crown witnesses regarding their prior criminal convictions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justice Jane Smith presiding.

The legal issues the court had to decide centred around the admissibility of prior criminal convictions of the Crown witnesses in the context of cross-examination. The defence argued that the prior convictions were prejudicial and irrelevant to the current charges, and thus, should not be admissible. The prosecution contended that the prior convictions were relevant to the credibility of the witnesses and should be admissible. The court needed to balance the probative value of the prior convictions against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendants.

The court examined the relevant principles and authorities governing the admissibility of prior criminal convictions during cross-examination. Justice Smith concluded that while prior convictions could be relevant to the credibility of a witness, their probative value must be weighed against the risk of unfair prejudice. In this case, the court found that the prior convictions were highly prejudicial and not directly relevant to the current charges. Consequently, the court ruled that the cross-examination of the witnesses regarding their prior convictions was inadmissible. The ruling was based on the need to ensure a fair trial for the defendants and to prevent the jury from being swayed by irrelevant prejudicial information.

As a result of the court's ruling, the cross-examination of the two Crown witnesses regarding their prior convictions was disallowed. The case proceeded without this line of questioning, and the final orders of the court were that the objection to the cross-examination was upheld, and the prior convictions of the witnesses could not be raised during the trial.

Orders