R v Knight (No 2) - [2009] QSC 449

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Mark Dempsey Knight & Ors (No 2) [2009] QSC 449

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

V

MARK DEMPSEY KNIGHT

FILE NO/S:

49/08

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

27, 28, 29 May

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

(a)        that the challenged evidence of Donovan, Robinson, McIlwain, Colless, Reece, Findlay, Sullivan, Devon, McLuckie, Friedrich and Weeks be admitted into evidence save in respect of:

(i)         that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 21 of his statement to the extent that it consists of the opinion of Robinson and reflects Robinson’s view of Williams and his potential for violence;

(ii)        that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 36 of his statement;

(iii)       that of Colless as contained in paragraph 31 of his statement to the extent it consists of the advice of Colless; and

(iv)       that of Colless as contained in paragraph 68 of his statement.

(b)        the Crown is not permitted to lead the challenged evidence of Kelly;

(c)        that the parties have leave to make such further submissions as they may be advised in relation to the admissibility of the evidence of Devon contained in paragraph 15 of his statement and Weeks contained in paragraph 12 of her statement.

COUNSEL:

Mr D Lynch (for Williams) Mr G McGuire (for Knight) Mr J Fraser (for Robertson)

(Applicants)

Mr R Pointing

(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Office

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mark Dempsey Knight, Wesley Robert Williams and Wayne Thomas Robertson, are charged with the murder of Robert James Buckley. They have pleaded not guilty.

This is an application brought by the accused pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code. The prosecution wish to lead evidence of statements made by the deceased to the witnesses proposed to be called concerning his relationship with the accused men, particularly Williams. The accused object to the admission into evidence of these statements.

The basis for the objection is that the evidence is plainly hearsay and does not satisfy the necessary preconditions namely:

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

(b) That the evidence be such that a “relevant inference may logically and reasonably be drawn” from it (per Barwick CJ in Wilson v The Queen[1]) that advances the Crown case.

[1](1970) 123 CLR 334 at 339

The Lead Up to the Alleged Murder

The deceased was found hanging in a shower block cubicle in 10 block at the Rockhampton Correctional Centre (then known as Etna Creek) on 16 June 1999. Each of the accused, along with 30 other prisoners, was a resident of, or had access to, 10 block at the time of death. The deceased had been a resident of 8 block from 16 March to 7 June. The accused Williams had been resident there until 24 May before being moved to 10 block. The deceased had then been moved from 8 block to the…

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 Knight (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Knight (No 2) [2009] QSC 449
Case: [2009] QSC 449
Decision Date: 4 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Knight (No 2) involved the defendant, Knight, who was subject to a court hearing where various pieces of evidence were contested for admissibility. The case was heard before a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The central dispute centred around the admissibility of statements made by multiple witnesses, including Donovan, Robinson, McIlwain, Colless, Reece, Findlay, Sullivan, Devon, McLuckie, Friedrich, Weeks, and Kelly. Each of these individuals had provided statements that were challenged on various grounds, necessitating a thorough examination by the court to determine their admissibility.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the admissibility of opinion evidence, the potential for prejudice, and whether certain statements could be considered hearsay or unreliable. Specific concerns arose around statements that were deemed to be opinions or advice, as well as those that might unfairly prejudice the defendant. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect it might have on the trial's fairness.

The court meticulously reviewed each contested piece of evidence, applying relevant legal principles to determine its admissibility. The court concluded that most of the challenged evidence could be admitted, subject to certain exclusions. Notably, specific parts of Robinson's and Colless's statements were excluded due to their nature as opinion or advice, which could potentially influence the jury unduly. Furthermore, the evidence of Kelly was deemed inadmissible, while the parties were granted leave to further address the admissibility of certain statements from Devon and Weeks.

The court's final orders specified which parts of the contested evidence were to be admitted or excluded from the trial, ensuring that the trial would proceed with a fair and balanced consideration of the presented evidence. This decision underscores the court's role in ensuring that the evidence presented is both relevant and reliable, thereby upholding the principles of justice in criminal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) that the challenged evidence of Donovan, Robinson, McIlwain, Colless, Reece, Findlay, Sullivan, Devon, McLuckie, Friedrich and Weeks be admitted into evidence save in respect of:

(i) that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 21 of his statement to the extent that it consists of the opinion of Robinson and reflects Robinson’s view of Williams and his potential for violence;

(ii) that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 36 of his statement;

(iii) that of Colless as contained in paragraph 31 of his statement to the extent it consists of the advice of Colless; and

(iv) that of Colless as contained in paragraph 68 of his statement.

(b) the Crown is not permitted to lead the challenged evidence of Kelly;

(c) that the parties have leave to make such further submissions as they may be advised in relation to the admissibility of the evidence of Devon contained in paragraph 15 of his statement and Weeks contained in paragraph 12 of her statement.

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:	The Queen v Mark Dempsey Knight & Ors (No 2) [2009] QSC 449
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN V MARK DEMPSEY KNIGHT
FILE NO/S:	49/08
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	4 June 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	27, 28, 29 May
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	(a) that the challenged evidence of Donovan, Robinson, McIlwain, Colless, Reece, Findlay, Sullivan, Devon, McLuckie, Friedrich and Weeks be admitted into evidence save in respect of: (i) that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 21 of his statement to the extent that it consists of the opinion of Robinson and reflects Robinson’s view of Williams and his potential for violence; (ii) that of Robinson as contained in paragraph 36 of his statement; (iii) that of Colless as contained in paragraph 31 of his statement to the extent it consists of the advice of Colless; and (iv) that of Colless as contained in paragraph 68 of his statement. (b) the Crown is not permitted to lead the challenged evidence of Kelly; (c) that the parties have leave to make such further submissions as they may be advised in relation to the admissibility of the evidence of Devon contained in paragraph 15 of his statement and Weeks contained in paragraph 12 of her statement.
COUNSEL:	Mr D Lynch (for Williams) Mr G McGuire (for Knight) Mr J Fraser (for Robertson) (Applicants) Mr R Pointing (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Office Director of Public Prosecutions