R v. Lester - [2007] QSC 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lester [2007] QSC 229

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

v

JIM LESTER
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 1015 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application to exclude evidence

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19, 20, 21, 22 June 2007

JUDGE:

Wilson J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – RELEVANCE – PARTICULAR CASES – the defendant allegedly procured another person to murder his ex-wife – whether evidence of the quality of the relationship between the deceased and the defendant, including the deceased’s fear of the defendant, is relevant and admissible

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR CASES – the defendant objects to evidence of witnesses as to what the deceased told them – whether the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule found in s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) apply

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – whether evidence should be excluded in the exercise of judicial discretion

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 93B, s 98, s 130
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 65
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 65
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 111

R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603, followed
R v Anderson (2000) 1 VR 1, followed
R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506, cited
R v Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208, cited
R v Glattback [2004] QCA 356, cited
R v Gojanovic (No 2) (2002) 130 A Crim R 179, cited
R v Olasiuk (1973) 6 SASR 255, cited
R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461, cited
R v Raye [2003] QCA 98, cited
R v Ritter Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Gleeson CJ, Handley JA and Hulme J, 31 August 1995, cited
R v Thomas [1970] VR 674, followed
Williams v R (2000) 119 A Crim R 490, not followed
Wilson v R (1970) 123 CLR 334, followed

COUNSEL:

J Pappas for the applicant defendant
R Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant defendant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Wilson J: The defendant Jim Lester, who has been charged with the murder of his wife Ingrid Lester on 19 November 2002, has applied for rulings on the admissibility of certain categories of evidence.

Liability pursuant to s 7(1)(d) of Criminal Code

Mrs Lester was killed by one Kinsella who stabbed her and cut her throat. Kinsella pleaded guilty to her murder. The defendant is alleged to have procured Kinsella to murder her, and so to be himself liable for the murder pursuant to s 7(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

Outline of facts

The deceased and the defendant separated in November 2001. She formed a relationship with Alasdair Morrison.

On 13/14 December 2001 the defendant assaulted the deceased.

On 14 December 2001 the deceased signed an application for a domestic violence…

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. Lester

Details

AGLC: R v Lester [2007] QSC 229
Case: [2007] QSC 229
Decision Date: 3 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v. Lester involved the defendant, Lester, who was charged with procuring another person to murder his ex-wife. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary issues revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence that was intended to be presented to support the charge against Lester.

The court was required to determine whether evidence regarding the quality of the relationship between Lester and the deceased, including the deceased's fear of Lester, was relevant and admissible in proving the defendant's intent to procure the murder. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule found in section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) applied to evidence provided by witnesses who recounted statements made by the deceased.

In its reasoning, the court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, recognising that evidence of the deceased's fear of the defendant was pertinent in establishing the context of the alleged procurement. The court found that such evidence was relevant and could be admitted as it directly supported the charge against Lester. Regarding the hearsay evidence, the court applied section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and concluded that the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule were applicable, allowing the witnesses' testimony to be considered.

The court exercised its judicial discretion under the Evidence Act, determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice it might cause. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible and could be presented in the trial against Lester. The final orders of the court allowed for the admissibility of the relationship evidence and the hearsay statements, enabling the prosecution to proceed with its case.

Orders