R v Martin - [2005] VSC 121

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT SHEPPARTON

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1476 of 2004

THE QUEEN

DAMIEN ROBERT MARTIN

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J.
WHERE HELD:	SHEPPARTON
DATE OF HEARING:	7-11, 15-19, 21 March 2005, 21-22 April 2005
DATE OF RULING:	15 March 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Martin (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 121

---

CRIMINAL LAW – No case submission – Circumstantial case – Lies as consciousness of guilt.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Damien Robert Martin	Mr G. Steward	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

In this case, the accused man, Damien Robert Martin, is charged with the murder of Adrian Joseph Power on Shepparton on 24 October 2003. The Crown has closed its case. On behalf of the accused man, Mr Steward of counsel has submitted that there is no case to answer and that I should direct the jury to acquit his client.

The prosecution case is essentially a circumstantial case. The Crown relies on a number of factors from which it asserts an inference of guilt should be drawn by the jury against the accused man. One of the factors relied on by the Crown consists of what the Crown alleges to be lies told by the accused man in his record of interview conducted with him by the homicide squad on 30 December 2003. Mr Steward has contended that the Crown should not be permitted to rely on those lies as evidence of the accused man's consciousness of guilt.

Accordingly, it is first necessary for me to rule whether the lies can be relied upon by the Crown before the jury as disclosing a consciousness of guilt before I determine the outcome of the no case submission.

It is not necessary for me to recite the facts of this case in any detail; the bare facts will suffice. On 22 October 2003 the accused man, the deceased man, Power, and Sean Michael Petot booked into the Midpark Caravan Park on the Midland Highway, Mooroopna. They were allocated Caravan 5. The three men stayed at that caravan for the next two nights.

On 24 October 2003 they went shopping at the Safeway food store in Shepparton. Later the three of them were observed east of Daish's Bridge on the Peter Ross‑Edwards Causeway, travelling in a western direction. Their behaviour was such that at 6.50 p.m. they were spoken to by Sergeant Kelly of the Shepparton police, and Senior Constables Scopelliti and McConkey of the Mooroopna police. Those officers directed the three men to a bitumen bike and pedestrian path, which ran alongside the roadway, for their own safety. The bitumen path intersected with a path which was located under Daish's Bridge and the intersection was just south of Daish's Bridge.

The police last saw the three men when they had got on to the pathway. At that stage, Mr Power had headed off in front of…

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 [2005] VSC 121
Case: [2005] VSC 121
Decision Date: 15 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Martin, the accused was tried for murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that Martin had killed a person under circumstances that indicated premeditation and deliberation. The case was primarily circumstantial, relying on the accused's actions and statements following the incident to establish guilt. Martin denied any involvement in the death, asserting his innocence throughout the trial.

The central legal issues revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown and whether it was enough to establish Martin's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had proven each element of the crime, particularly in the absence of direct evidence linking Martin to the murder. The defence argued that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and could be explained by innocent actions or statements.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed as a whole, provided a chain of events that pointed to Martin's guilt. The judge detailed the various pieces of evidence, including Martin's inconsistent statements, his actions following the incident, and other circumstantial details that, when considered together, supported the inference of his guilt. The court concluded that the evidence established the necessary elements of the crime, including intent and causation, beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court found Martin guilty of murder. The final orders included the sentencing of Martin to life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crime.

Orders