R v Laracy - [2007] VSC 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1422 of 2006

THE QUEEN

JODI ANNE LARACY

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	GEELONG
DATE OF HEARING:	29 AND 30 JANUARY; 1 AND 2, 5-7 FEBRUARY 2007
DATE OF RULING:	9 FEBRUARY 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v LARACY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 19

---

Criminal law- evidence - admissibility of statements made to police – accused person with intellectual disability – accused person alcoholic probably suffering withdrawal symptoms – involuntariness – unfairness – absence of independent third person – Victorian Police Manual – Crown seeking to rely on inaccuracies in statement of accused as evidencing consciousness of guilt – failure of accused to do self justice – Crimes Act 158 ss464G, 464H – meaning of ‘suspected; or ought reasonably to have been suspected’ – interview not recorded – whether later video taped record of interview constituted part of same period of questioning as unrecorded interview – statements inadmissible

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M O’Connell	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

The accused is a 35 year old woman charged with the murder of one Clissold at Camperdown between 21 and 23 April 2005.

Clissold's body was discovered in the backyard of the unit in which the accused lived on 23 April 2005.

The apparent cause of death was subsequently ascertained to be neck compression caused by ligature strangulation.

Prior to his death the accused had been in an ongoing relationship with the deceased, during which the deceased travelled from Colac on a regular basis to spend several days and nights a week with her at Camperdown. The evidence is that both the accused and the deceased customarily drank heavily and that from time to time the accused used intravenous drugs.

The Crown case is circumstantial. There is no direct evidence of the infliction of fatal injury upon the deceased by the accused. As part of its case the Crown seeks to adduce evidence of a series of statements made by the accused to police officers. None of these statements contain direct admissions to killing the deceased in the manner which the Crown contends was the cause of death.

Both singly and together, however, the statements contain a series of admissions as to relevant background circumstances, forming part of the Crown case as a whole. Further, it is ultimately contended on behalf of the Crown that a whole series of statements made, constituted deliberate lies evincing consciousness of guilt of murder.

The statements made by the accused which are in issue are as follows:

(a)Oral statements made in answer to preliminary questions asked by Detective Sergeant Rumble of the Colac Police at Camperdown Police Station on the night of 23 April 2005;
(b)A written statement given by the accused to Rumble at Camperdown Police Station on 24 April 2005 at 1.58 p.m.;
(c)A supplementary written statement given by 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 Laracy

Details

AGLC: R v Laracy [2007] VSC 19
Case: [2007] VSC 19
Decision Date: 9 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Laracy was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, Laracy, was charged with various offences, including assault and resisting arrest. The primary legal issue was the admissibility of statements made by Laracy to the police. The court had to determine whether the statements were voluntary, given Laracy's intellectual disability and potential alcohol withdrawal symptoms at the time of the interview. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the statements could be considered involuntary due to the absence of an independent third party during the interview, as required by the Victorian Police Manual. Another issue was whether inaccuracies in Laracy's statement could be used by the Crown to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt.

The court examined the meaning of 'suspected; or ought reasonably to have been suspected' under sections 464G and 464H of the Crimes Act. The court found that the initial interview was not recorded, but a subsequent video-taped interview occurred. The court had to determine whether the video-taped interview was part of the same period of questioning as the unrecorded interview. The court concluded that the statements were inadmissible due to the absence of an independent third person and the potential involuntariness of the statements, given Laracy's intellectual disability and possible withdrawal symptoms. The court found that the video-taped interview was not part of the same period of questioning as the unrecorded interview. Therefore, the statements were deemed inadmissible.

The final orders of the court were that the statements made by Laracy to the police were inadmissible as evidence in the trial. This decision was based on the absence of an independent third person during the interview, Laracy's intellectual disability, potential alcohol withdrawal symptoms, and the lack of a recorded interview. The court also found that the video-taped interview was not part of the same period of questioning as the unrecorded interview. This ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals with intellectual disabilities are provided with appropriate support and safeguards during police interviews to ensure the admissibility of any statements made.

Orders