R v Martin - [2024] NSWSC 968

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin [2024] NSWSC 968
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 15 July 2024
Decision date: 15 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Chen J
Decision:
Order, pursuant to s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), that, during the course of the trial, at a time and on the date agreed by the parties, an inspection be conducted of the unit complex known as 106 Karalta Road, Erina, New South Wales.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Trial – Crown application for view of alleged crime scene – Where Crown application supported by the accused – Whether the view will assist the jury in resolving issues of fact and in understanding the evidence – Application for view granted

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ha v R (2014) 44 VR 319; [2014] VSCA 335
R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 10) [2015] NSWSC 1067

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Nicholas Luke Martin (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
A Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Sydney Criminal Defence & Traffic Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00103442
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: Nicholas Martin (‘the accused’) is on trial for the murder of Shahn Baker (‘the deceased’), it being alleged that on 3 February 2022 he stabbed the deceased, intending to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm.
The accused does not dispute that he stabbed the deceased with a knife and that the stab wound to the chest perforated the deceased’s heart causing his death, but argues that he acted in self-defence in acting as he did.
The stabbing occurred in a unit complex in Erina, New South Wales – specifically in the communal driveway of that complex.
The Crown, pursuant to s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), applies for a view of the alleged crime scene. The accused supports the application. In the event a view is ordered, the accused has elected not to attend.

The power to order a view: s 53 of the Evidence Act

The power to order a view is contained in s 53 of the Evidence Act, and the evidentiary effect in s 54. Section 53 provides:

53   Views
(1) A judge may, on application, order that a demonstration, experiment or inspection be held.
(2) A judge is not to make an order unless he or she is satisfied that—
(a)  the parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to be present, and
(b)  the judge and, if there is a jury, the jury will be present.

(3) Without limiting the matters that the judge may take into account in deciding whether to make an order, the judge is to take into account the following—
(a)  whether the parties will be present,
(b)  whether the demonstration, experiment or inspection will, in the court’s opinion, assist the court in resolving issues of fact or understanding the evidence,
(c)  the danger that…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2024] NSWSC 968
Case: [2024] NSWSC 968
Decision Date: 15 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin involved a criminal trial where the accused, Martin, faced charges related to a crime that had allegedly taken place at a specific location. The prosecution sought to obtain a view of the alleged crime scene to better assist the jury in resolving issues of fact and in understanding the evidence presented. Notably, the accused, Martin, did not oppose the Crown's application for a view of the crime scene, which added a unique aspect to the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the proposed view would indeed assist the jury in understanding the evidence and resolving factual issues in the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a view of the alleged crime scene would be beneficial for the jury in comprehending the evidence and resolving factual disputes. The court had to balance the potential assistance to the jury against any possible prejudice that might arise from such a view. Given that the accused did not oppose the application, the court also needed to consider the implications of the accused's support for the view, which might suggest that the scene was not particularly prejudicial.

In ruling on the application, the court determined that a view of the alleged crime scene would indeed assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in resolving factual issues. The court was persuaded that the potential benefits of the view outweighed any possible prejudice. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the accused's support for the application, which suggested that the scene was not inherently prejudicial. Consequently, the Crown's application for a view was granted.

The final order of the court was that the jury would be allowed to view the alleged crime scene during the trial. This decision was made in the interest of ensuring that the jury could effectively understand the evidence and resolve factual issues in the case.

Orders