R v Julin - [2000] TASSC 50

[2000] TASSC 50

CITATION: R v Julin [2000] TASSC 50

PARTIES:  R
  v
  JULIN, Benjamin Brad

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  103/2000
DELIVERED ON:  18 May 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  15 May 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Confessions and admissions - Statements - Records of interview - Other matters - Requirement for video taping - Admissibility of confessions and admissions if requirement not satisfied - Admission to police officer prior to arrest - Subsequent video interview - Admission not adopted or confirmed by accused.
Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 (Tas), s8.
R v McKenzie [1999] TASSC 36, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [492]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Prosecution:  L A Mason
             Accused:  P A Warmbrum
Solicitors:
             Prosecution:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Piggott Wood & Baker

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 50
Number of Paragraphs: 22

Serial No 50/2000
File No 103/2000

R
v
BENJAMIN BRAD JULIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

18 May 2000

The accused is charged with committing an aggravated burglary at 7 Lowestoft Avenue, Berriedale on 17 February 2000.

At issue is whether the Crown may call evidence of certain admissions made by the accused and evidence of the identification of the accused as one of those seen leaving the scene of the crime.

Evidence was called on the voir dire from Mr Peter Stevenson and Constable Gregory Clarke. Mr Stevenson resides at 5 Lowestoft Avenue. At about 3 pm on 17 February 2000 Mr Stevenson heard the sound of breaking glass coming from a neighbouring residence at 7 Lowestoft Avenue. On investigating, Mr Stevenson noted that a glass panel next to the rear door of that residence had been broken and he saw someone moving around inside the residence. After arranging for his wife to telephone the police he kept watch. As he waited in the driveway at 7 Lowestoft Avenue, two male youths walked from the rear of the residence into the driveway. Mr Stevenson and the youths were face to face about three to four metres apart. The youth nearest to Mr Stevenson was taller than his companion and to Mr Stevenson's observation he was the older of the two. Mr Stevenson focused his attention on that youth. He had an unimpeded view of him for several seconds. On seeing Mr Stevenson the youths turned and ran. To no avail Mr Stevenson called for them to stop.

Constable Clarke responded to a telephone report of the break in at 7 Lowestoft Avenue. A police officer at the scene informed Constable Clarke by radio that there had been two offenders and they had run from Lowestoft Avenue in a southerly direction towards the Berriedale Caravan Park. Constable Clarke was travelling towards the scene in a marked police vehicle in a northerly direction on Main Road, Berriedale. About 100 metres south of the southern end of Lowestoft Avenue he noticed the accused running in a southerly direction along a…

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 Julin

Details

AGLC: R v Julin [2000] TASSC 50
Case: [2000] TASSC 50
Decision Date: 18 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the accused, Benjamin Brad Julin, is charged with committing an aggravated burglary at 7 Lowestoft Avenue, Berriedale on 17 February 2000. The main issue before the court was whether the Crown could present evidence of admissions made by the accused to a police officer and evidence of the identification of the accused by a witness. The court had to determine the admissibility of the accused's admissions under the Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995, s 8, and whether the identification evidence should be excluded due to its prejudicial value outweighing its probative value.

Evans J held that the admissions made by the accused to Constable Clarke were not admissible as they were not captured on video tape, and the requirements of s 8(2) of the Act could not be satisfied. The court found that the accused's comment made outside 9 Lowestoft Avenue was not subject to s 8 and could be admitted into evidence. However, the court allowed the evidence of Mr Stevenson's identification of the accused as he sat in the back of the police vehicle to be led, as its probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The court's decision ensures that the evidence presented in court adheres to the requirements of the Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 and maintains a fair and just trial for the accused.

Orders