R v Martin (No 4) - [2017] NSWSC 1291

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1291
Hearing dates: 19-20 September 2017
Date of orders: 20 September 2017
Decision date: 20 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Photographs 29 and 65 are not admissible.
The remaining post mortem photographs are admissible.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – post mortem photographs – photograph of deceased in situ at murder scene – assessment of probative value – assessment of prejudicial effect
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137
Cases Cited: R v Meyn (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1467
R v Phanekham (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1695
R v Zammit [1999] NSWCCA 65
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Micheal Phillip Martin
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Campbell (Crown)
Mr G D Wendler (M P Martin)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Stuart Percy & Associates (M P Martin)

File Number(s): 2015/00078236; 2015/00120687
Publication restriction: No publication until the conclusion of trial

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

Objection was taken to a number of photographs that the prosecution seeks to tender in the course of adducing the evidence of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy of the deceased. The accused is charged with murder, as well as two other offences directed towards the same victim (who was his father) and his father’s flatmate a couple of months earlier. The central issue in the trial is whether the accused was responsible for the crimes.
The Crown case is that the accused attempted to secure the proceeds of two insurance policies taken out on his father’s life and that he attempted to kill his father on 6 or 7 April 2014 and then successfully did kill him on 12 or 13 June the same year. The Crown will invite the jury to infer that the murder weapon was a samurai sword owned by the accused. The accused raises an alibi in respect of the April incident. He says that he was at home in Esk in Queensland. He relies on a credit card payment at a service station in a town around 30 kilometres from Esk. In respect of the murder, the accused says that he was a victim, along with his father, of a home invasion perpetrated by unknown criminals. There is some evidence capable of supporting this including the evidence of a Mr Collingwood who found the accused at the foot of the stairs outside of the deceased’s flat bound with tape. The accused made a statement shortly after the killing in which he described the circumstances in which he was assaulted and in which his father was killed.
I understand there will be further evidence of interviews in which the accused maintains this account. In addition to the accused’s accounts to police and the evidence of Mr Collingwood, there will also be evidence of injuries suffered by the accused. There is also evidence that the deceased mixed with bikies and had some enemies who may have been motivated to…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Martin (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1291
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1291
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin (No 4) was before the court and involved a dispute over the admissibility of post mortem photographs in a murder trial. The appellant, Martin, was convicted of murder and was appealing the decision based on the court's handling of evidence, specifically the post mortem photographs of the deceased. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine the appropriate legal standards for assessing the probative value and prejudicial effect of such photographs in criminal trials.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the photographs and, if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant a new trial. The court had to consider the principles set out in previous cases regarding the admissibility of photographs in criminal proceedings, and whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the probative value of the photographs against their potential prejudicial effect. The court also had to consider the impact of the photographs on the jury's ability to make a fair and impartial decision.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the photographs, as they were relevant to proving the cause of death and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the probative value and prejudicial effect of the photographs, and that the jury was capable of assessing the evidence impartially. The court emphasised the importance of allowing juries to see all relevant evidence, including photographs, in order to make informed decisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court, as the appeal was dismissed and the conviction remained in place.

Orders