R v Lees - [2006] VSCA 115

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 137 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
KEITH LEES

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., VINCENT and NEAVE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 May 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 115

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Murder – Lies and consciousness of guilt – Whether statement by accused was implied admission or direct admission against interest – Whether Edwards direction required – Jury deliberation – Whether sufficient time for jury to deliberate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr B. Fox	McNamaras

MAXWELL, P.
VINCENT, J.A.
NEAVE, J.A.:

On 22 December 2004, the applicant (“Lees”) was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Barry Waters (“Waters”). The deceased was last seen on the evening of Friday, 6 April 2001. His body was discovered some 11 months later in bush near Reefton. The precise cause of death was never established.

The facts of the case

Lees and his son lived with Waters as boarders in South Oakleigh from December 2000, after meeting him through a local church. Waters and his wife had separated in September 2000, shortly before Lees moved in, when Mrs Waters and their two children left the family home. Waters was said to be a volatile man, and appeared to be suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), which primarily manifested itself through the hoarding of a large number of objects which filled his backyard and the back rooms of his house.

At first Mrs Waters kept her address secret from Waters, but after some time she disclosed it to Waters, and began visiting to facilitate him seeing their children. It was during these visits that Mrs Waters and Lees met. She became attracted to Lees, and Lees encouraged these affections. Despite some disputes, it also appears that Lees had gained the confidence of Waters. Waters, who had been devastated by the separation, had begun to seek treatment for OCD and for the distress he had felt at the breakdown of their marriage. Mrs Waters and Waters’ parents were also involved in this treatment.

Lees discouraged Waters from contacting his wife, and from believing that the marriage could be saved. At the same time, following some incidents between Waters and Mrs Waters, he encouraged Mrs Waters to take out an intervention order against Waters. She did so on an interim basis on 26 March 2001, and the full hearing of the application was to take place on 9 April 2001. In the lead up to the hearing date, Lees expressed concerns to other about how Waters might behave at the hearing.

On the evening of Friday, 6 April 2001, Waters caught a train from Oakleigh to Spencer St. He had arranged to be picked up by Lees after attending the Caravan and Camping Show at the Exhibition Buildings. He did not return home. He 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 Lees

Details

AGLC: R v Lees [2006] VSCA 115
Case: [2006] VSCA 115
Decision Date: 29 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lees involved the accused, Lees, who was convicted of murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain statements made by Lees, as well as the adequacy of the jury's deliberation time. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The issues before the court were whether Lees' statements constituted implied admissions or direct admissions against interest, and if a direction in the form of an Edwards direction was required. Additionally, the court had to determine if the jury had sufficient time to deliberate on the evidence presented.

The court examined the nature of Lees' statements, considering if they could be interpreted as implied admissions or direct admissions against interest. The court found that the statements did not qualify as direct admissions against interest but were more appropriately categorised as implied admissions. The court further concluded that an Edwards direction was not necessary in this instance because the jury was adequately informed of the weight to be given to the statements. Regarding the jury's deliberation, the court assessed the time provided and concluded that the jury had sufficient time to deliberate on the evidence and reach a verdict.

In its judgment, the court upheld Lees' conviction for murder, finding the statements to be implied admissions rather than direct admissions against interest. The court also confirmed that no Edwards direction was required, as the jury had been properly instructed on the matter. The court further determined that the jury had adequate time to deliberate on the evidence, and thus, the verdict was not affected by any alleged lack of deliberation time.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders