R v Martin (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 969

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 969
Hearing dates: 15 July 2024
Date of orders: 16 July 2024
Decision date: 16 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Chen J
Decision:
See [58]

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – Criminal proceedings – Where accused seeks leave, pursuant to s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), to adduce evidence that at the time of his death, the deceased had a tendency to act in a certain way – Where accused alleges that tendency evidence is relevant to the conduct of the deceased at the time of or immediately before the confrontation that led to the deceased’s death, and therefore relevant to support the accused’s case he was acting in self-defence – Whether the tendency evidence has “significant probative value” under s 97(1)(b) – Accused’s application to rely on tendency evidence granted

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Geraghty v R [2023] NSWCCA 47
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
McPhillamy v The Queen [2018] HCA 52; (2018) 92 ALJR 1045
R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40
Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355
TL v The King (2022) 275 CLR 83; [2022] HCA 35

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

HIS HONOUR: The accused, Nicholas Luke Martin, stands trial for the murder of Shahn Baker (‘the deceased’) allegedly committed on 3 February 2022 at Erina, New South Wales. The trial commenced on 15 July 2024.
By an Amended Tendency Notice dated 8 July 2024, the accused seeks leave, pursuant to s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), to adduce tendency evidence. Put simply, the evidence sought to be adduced is that at the time of his death, the deceased had a tendency to have a particular state of mind, and a tendency to act in a certain way. More specifically, it is said that the tendency evidence sought to be adduced is relevant “to the conduct and state of mind of the deceased at the time of or immediately before the confrontation with [the accused]” (accused’s submissions, [18]), and is therefore relevant and important evidence to support the accused’s case that he was acting in self-defence.
Each party prepared written submissions in connection with this application. The accused’s submissions are dated 8 July 2024, and the Crown’s submissions are dated 10 July 2024.

Background to the trial

A summary of the background to the trial, taken from the accused’s written submissions and accepted by the Crown for the purposes of this application, is as follows.
At the time of the alleged murder, the accused was in an intimate relationship with Ms…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Martin (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 969
Case: [2024] NSWSC 969
Decision Date: 16 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin (No 2) involved the defendant, Martin, who was charged with the murder of the deceased. The dispute centred around whether Martin was acting in self-defence at the time of the incident, and specifically whether he was entitled to introduce evidence regarding the deceased's past behaviour to support his defence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of tendency evidence under section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Martin sought to introduce evidence that the deceased had a propensity to act violently, which he argued was relevant to establishing his claim of self-defence. The prosecution contested the relevance and probative value of this evidence. The court had to determine whether the tendency evidence met the criteria set out in section 97(1)(b) of the Act, which requires that the evidence has significant probative value.

The court held that the evidence of the deceased's violent tendencies had significant probative value in this context. The court reasoned that understanding the deceased's past behaviour could assist in assessing the circumstances leading up to the confrontation, thereby supporting Martin's self-defence claim. The court found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have, and thus granted Martin's application to introduce the tendency evidence.

Martin's application for leave to adduce the tendency evidence was granted, allowing him to present the evidence in his defence. This decision underscores the importance of considering the context and circumstances in determining the admissibility of tendency evidence, particularly in cases where self-defence is a central issue.

Orders