Legal Research
Cases
R v Lyons (Subpoena leave application)

R v Lyons (Subpoena leave application)

Case [2018] VSC 256 18 May 2018

Discovery & Disclosure

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Evidence Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0004
S CR 2017 0005

THE QUEEN

CHRISTINE ANN LYONS and RONALD LYONS

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March and 26 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 May 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lyons (Subpoena leave application)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 256

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to inspect medical and psychological records of Crown witness in a murder trial including records relating to allegations of sexual abuse – Allegations of sexual abuse relevant to credibility of Crown witness but not directly relevant to the proceeding – Applicability of Division 2A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 – Crown conceded Division 2A not applicable and withdrew objection to inspection – Court accepted Crown concession and permitted inspection.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Stronger literal meaning would lead to unintended and anomalous results – Alternative meaning more consistent with legislative purpose – Principles to be applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms F Dalziel with Mr B Ihle	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Ronald Lyons	Mr P Smallwood	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

The Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the DPP’) charges that Christine Ann Lyons and Ronald Lyons (together, ‘the Accused’) at Kangaroo Flat in Victoria:

(a)between 20 January 2016 and 22 January 2016, attempted to murder Samantha Jane Kelly contrary to s 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 and common law; and
(b)on or about 23 January 2016, murdered Samantha Jane Kelly contrary to common law.

With respect to the murder charges, the DPP alleges that each of the accused was involved in the murder of Samantha Kelly by Peter Arthur (‘Arthur’) and as a consequence ‘is taken to have committed the offence’ pursuant to s 324(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

The prosecution case is as follows:

Both Accused along with Arthur entered into an agreement, arrangement or understanding to kill Samantha Kelly. Their motive was to enable the trio, and in particular Christine, to whom the two men were devoted, to assume parenting of Samantha’s children.
Pursuant to the agreement they discussed and planned how to carry out the murder. They then took a number of steps to carry out those plans. They attempted to kill her on or about 20-22 January, and they finally succeeded and killed Samantha, in the early hours of 23 January 2016.

By an application dated 23 February 2018, Ronald Lyons (‘the Applicant’) sought leave to issue a subpoena to the Justice Health Unit of the Department of Justice and Regulation, pursuant to Division 2A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (‘the Act’) for the production of the following protected documents (‘the subpoenaed material’):

A full copy of Mr Peter Arthur (DOB: 21 September 1971) medical and psychological records of the Justice Health file including but not limited to any assessment reports, attendance records, file notes, records, treatment plans…

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 Lyons (Subpoena leave application)

Details

AGLC: R v Lyons (Subpoena leave application) [2018] VSC 256
Case: [2018] VSC 256
Decision Date: 18 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lyons, the applicant sought leave to inspect medical and psychological records of a Crown witness, who was a key witness in the murder trial. The applicant sought the inspection to examine the records in relation to allegations of sexual abuse, which were considered relevant to the credibility of the witness but not directly relevant to the charges against the applicant. The Crown objected to the inspection, citing the provisions of Division 2A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958. However, during the proceedings, the Crown conceded that Division 2A did not apply and withdrew their objection to the inspection of the records.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of Division 2A of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 and whether it applied to the inspection of medical and psychological records of a Crown witness. The applicant argued that a literal interpretation of the provision would lead to unintended and anomalous results, and that an alternative interpretation would be more consistent with the legislative purpose. The court considered the principles of statutory interpretation and the legislative purpose in deciding whether to permit the inspection of the records.

The court accepted the Crown's concession that Division 2A did not apply and permitted the inspection of the records. The court found that a literal interpretation of the provision would lead to unintended and anomalous results and that an alternative interpretation, which would allow for the inspection of the records in limited circumstances, was more consistent with the legislative purpose. The court emphasised the importance of considering the legislative purpose when interpreting provisions and found that the inspection of the records was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

No final orders were made in the case as the matter was an application for leave to inspect records and not a final determination of the charges against the applicant. However, the court's decision to permit the inspection of the records was an important step in ensuring a fair trial for the applicant.

Orders