Legal Research
Cases
R v Kerr (Ruling No 1)

R v Kerr (Ruling No 1)

Case [2015] VSC 64 27 February 2015

Admissibility of Evidence

Illegally Obtained Evidence

Propriety of Admission

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0124
S CR 2014 0125

THE QUEEN

DANIELLE KERR
and
DARREN LEWIS

First Accused

Second Accused

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	18, 19, 23 and 25 February 2015
DATE OF RULING:	27 February 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kerr & anor (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 64

---

EVIDENCE – Criminal Trial – Murder – Applications to exclude admissions made during course of VROIs and covertly recorded conversation with police – impropriety - whether desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs undesirability of admitting evidence improperly obtained – whether mere impropriety or illegality can provide basis for exclusion under unfairness discretion – Crimes Act 1958, ss 464, 464A, 464C – Evidence Act 2008, ss 90, 137, 138, 139 – Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Taylor QC with Ms Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the First Accused	Mr S. Johns	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Second Accused	Mr D. Dann	Valos Black & Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1... Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

2... Factual background..................................................................................................................... 1

(a).... Statements made by the accused....................................................................................... 3
(b).... The Homicide Squad involvement................................................................................... 3
(c).... 2 January............................................................................................................................... 5

3... The issues on this application................................................................................................... 5

4... General Legal Principles............................................................................................................. 6

(a).... Rights and Obligations....................................................................................................... 6
(b).... Section 138 - Impropriety and Illegality........................................................................... 8
(c).... Section 90 - Unfairness...................................................................................................... 12

5... Kerr................................................................................................................................................ 16

(a).... The interview..................................................................................................................... 16
(i)....... At Kerang................................................................................................................ 17
(ii)...... In the Police Car..................................................................................................... 17
(iii)..... At Bendigo Police Station..................................................................................... 17

(b).... Analysis............................................................................................................................... 19
(i)....... Was Ms Kerr deceived into believing that she was a witness
........... when in fact she was a suspect?.......................................................................... 19
(ii)...... Bendigo Police Station.......................................................................................... 23

6... Lewis............................................................................................................................................. 25

(a).... The interview..................................................................................................................... 25
(i)....... Kerang to Bendigo................................................................................................. 26
(ii)...... Bendigo – the VROI.............................................................................................. 28

(b).... Submissions........................................................................................................................ 33
(c).... Analysis............................................................................................................................... 35
(i)....... Was Mr Lewis in Custody?.................................................................................. 35
(ii)...... Was Mr Lewis suspected of an offence?............................................................ 37
(iii)..... Did Detectives Birch and Roche fail to comply with s 464A(2)(a)?................ 41
(iv)..... Did Detectives Birch and Roche fail to comply with s 464A(3)?.................... 42
(v)...... Did Detectives Birch and Roche fail to comply with s 464C?......................... 42
(vi)..... Did the Detectives intend to prevent Mr Lewis from making
........... an informed decision about his rights?.............................................................. 45

(d).... Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 46
(i)....... Section 138 – Impropriety and Illegality............................................................ 46
(ii)...... Section 90 - unfairness........................................................................................... 49
(iii)..... Section 137.............................................................................................................. 51

7... Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 51

HIS HONOUR:

1. Introduction

Darren Lewis and Danielle Kerr are charged with the murder of William Stevenson on Christmas Day 2013. Both accused were interviewed by Homicide Squad detectives on 2 January 2014. The propriety of these interviews (VROIs) is impugned, and each accused has submitted that I ought exclude parts of the relevant interview from the evidence available to the prosecution at trial. Mr Lewis also submitted I ought exclude evidence…

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 Kerr (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Kerr (Ruling No 1) [2015] VSC 64
Case: [2015] VSC 64
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the respondent, Kerr, is charged with the murder of the victim, and the case is being heard in the Victorian Supreme Court. The primary issue before the court is whether admissions made by the respondent during voluntary recorded interviews (VROsI) and a covertly recorded conversation with the police can be admitted as evidence. The respondent has applied to have these admissions excluded due to the alleged impropriety of their acquisition. The court must determine whether the mere impropriety of the acquisition process can be grounds for exclusion under the unfairness discretion, and if the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of its acquisition.

The court first examined the statutory framework governing the admission of evidence, including the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 and the Evidence Act 2008. It also considered the principles established in Em v The Queen, which emphasise the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice is not undermined by the admission of improperly obtained evidence. The court noted that while the evidence in question was obtained through improper means, it was not illegal. The court then weighed the desirability of admitting the evidence against the undesirability of its acquisition, concluding that the probative value of the admissions outweighed the risk of unfairness. The court found that the mere impropriety of the acquisition process, without any associated illegality, was insufficient to warrant exclusion under the unfairness discretion.

The court ultimately decided that the admissions made by the respondent during the VROIs and the covertly recorded conversation with the police would be admitted as evidence. The court acknowledged the impropriety of the acquisition process but determined that the probative value of the evidence was significant and that the desirability of admitting it outweighed the risk of unfairness. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework and the principles established in relevant case law, ensuring that the administration of justice was not undermined. The final orders of the court will reflect the decision to admit the contested evidence into the trial.

Orders