R v Lamb and Thurston - [2002] NSWSC 357

CITATION: R v Lamb and Thurston [2002] NSWSC 357

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70209/01; 70066/01

HEARING DATE(S): 3 - 13 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 24 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Stanley Joseph Lamb - Accused
Edward George Thurston - Accused

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : M.A. Macadam QC - Crown
P.M. Paish - Lamb
A.I. Parker - Thurston

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Ross Hill and Associates - Lamb
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Thurston

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - admissions - detention after arrest for purposes of investigation - compliance with requirments of Part 10A, Crimes Act 1900 - application for detention warrant - calculation of 4 hour period - times out - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - admissions - whether circumstances in which admissions made unfair to accused - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - admissions improperly obtained - discretion to admit - relevant considerations - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - accused charged with murder - videoed walkaround - accused handcuffed - whether video unfairly prejudicial to accused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, Part 10A
Evidence Act 1995, ss 90, 138, 142
Crimes (Detention After Arrest) Regulation 1998, cl 5 & 28

CASES CITED: R v Phung Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115
R v Helmhout [2000] NSWSC 208 112 ACR 10
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54

DECISION: Recorded interview and videoed walkaround both admissible.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL

DUNFORD J

TAMWORTH: Wednesday, 24 APRIL 2002

70209/01 R v Stanley Joseph LAMB
70066/01 R v Edward George THURSTON
JUDGMENT - On Admission of Recorded Interview & Walkaround

1 His Honour: Objection was taken on behalf of the accused Lamb to the admission of his recorded interview with police commencing at 6.18 am on 30 October 2000 and the videoed walkaround with him of the crime scene commencing at 12.32 pm that day. The grounds of objection were that the requirements of Part 10A (ss 354 to 356Y) of the Crimes Act 1900 had not been complied with, and that accordingly the evidence could not be admitted unless I was satisfied that it ought to be admitted having regard to the considerations set out in s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995. At the conclusion of the submissions I ruled both pieces of evidence were admissible and indicated I would give my reasons later, which I now do.

2 Apart from the transcripts of the interview and the walkaround, a viewing of part of the walkaround and a number of witnesses who gave evidence including the accused, the evidence also included the Custody Management Record (CMR) relating to the accused and the Local Court file relating to the application for a detention warrant in respect of the accused. The burden of proving that the video recorded interview and the walkaround qualify for admission rests on the Crown on the balance of probabilities: Evidence Act 1995, s 142.

3 The accused Thurston was…

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 Lamb and Thurston

Details

AGLC: R v Lamb and Thurston [2002] NSWSC 357
Case: [2002] NSWSC 357
Decision Date: 24 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lamb and Thurston involved the two accused, Lamb and Thurston, who were facing criminal charges. The dispute centred around the legality of their detention, the admissibility of their statements, and the circumstances surrounding the recording of a video during their investigation. The matter was heard in the relevant criminal court. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the detention of the accused complied with the statutory requirements, the fairness of the circumstances in which the accused's admissions were made, and the admissibility of the video evidence.

The court considered the requirements of Part 10A of the Crimes Act 1900, which governs the detention of individuals after arrest for the purposes of investigation. It was necessary to determine whether the four-hour period for which the accused were detained was calculated correctly. The court also examined whether the admissions made by the accused were obtained under unfair circumstances and whether the video recording was prejudicial. In making its decision, the court weighed the relevant considerations, including the fairness of the process and the potential impact on the accused's right to a fair trial.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the detention of the accused did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court also determined that the admissions made by the accused were obtained under circumstances that were unfair and, therefore, inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that the video recording of the accused during the walkaround, while they were handcuffed, was unfairly prejudicial and should not be admitted as evidence. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant legislation to exclude the improperly obtained evidence.

As a result of the court's findings, the final orders included the exclusion of the admissions made by the accused during their detention and the video recording from being presented as evidence in the trial. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that evidence is obtained and presented in a fair and lawful manner.

Orders