R v Lupton (No 1) - [2022] NSWSC 33

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lupton (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 33
Hearing dates: 19, 20 January 2022
Date of orders: 20 January 2022
Decision date: 20 January 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) The tendency evidence is not admissible.
(2) The text messages are admissible with the exception of items 87 to 90, 186 and all or part of 188.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – tendency evidence – murder by stabbing – where accused arrested with knife the night before alleged murder – accused arrested with small blade at the time of his arrest after the murder – alleged tendency to possess knives – where issue in trial expected to be self defence and whether accused brought knife to the scene – whether evidence possesses significant probative value – whether unfair prejudice exceeds probative value
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – text messages – whether evidence relevant to the accused’s state of mind – whether direction capable of curing any potential misuse of the evidence

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 97(1)(a)

Cases Cited:
Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20
IMM v R (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
Jay Lupton
Representation:
Counsel:
G Harrison (Regina)
A Webb (Lupton)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP (Regina)
Legal Aid (Lupton)

File Number(s): 2020/00073934

ex tempore Judgment (revised)

The accused is charged with murder. His trial was listed last year but was delayed because of the COVID-19 lockdown and the need for the Court to vacate all jury trials. A pre-trial argument about the admissibility of certain evidence was listed to commence on 10 January 2022, but was delayed because two of the lawyers involved in the case tested COVID-19 positive and one of them was quite unwell.
The pre-trial argument commenced on Wednesday 19 January 2022, although the parties had provided some of the evidentiary material and written submissions in advance of the hearing. We lost the afternoon because an incident occurred at the gaol where Mr Lupton was, at least as far as we knew, taken from the AVL suite and those facilities we were told were locked down, but it turned out that was not the case. That was partly through the oral submissions of Mr Webb, who appears for Mr Lupton at the trial. The matter was then adjourned until this morning.
Meanwhile, in consultation with the parties, I determine that the empanelment process would occur on Friday that is tomorrow, 21 January 2022, at 11:30am at the Downing Centre.
The parties seek two rulings as to the admissibility of certain evidence. Those rulings are somewhat connected in a factual or evidentiary sense, although they raise distinct legal issues.
The first ruling is whether the prosecution may adduce tendency evidence concerning the accused's possession of knives shortly before and after the alleged murder.
The second issue concerns 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 Lupton (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Lupton (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 33
Case: [2022] NSWSC 33
Decision Date: 20 January 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lupton involved the defendant, Lupton, who was charged with the murder of a man by stabbing. The dispute arose from the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence, including the defendant's possession of knives and text messages exchanged between him and another individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the defendant's possession of knives and the text messages were admissible and, if so, whether any prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. The defence argued that the evidence was irrelevant and would unduly prejudice the jury against the defendant, particularly in relation to the issue of self-defence.

The court held that the evidence of the defendant's possession of knives had significant probative value in establishing a tendency to possess knives, which was relevant to the issue of whether the defendant brought a knife to the scene. The court found that the prejudicial effect of the evidence did not exceed its probative value. Similarly, the text messages were deemed relevant to the defendant's state of mind and were therefore admissible. The court considered that any potential prejudice could be managed by an appropriate direction to the jury.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence of the defendant's possession of knives and the text messages were admissible in the trial.

Orders