R v Martin (No 6) - [2017] NSWSC 1344

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1344
Hearing dates: 25 September 2017
Date of orders: 29 September 2017
Decision date: 29 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Evidence of the simulation, experiment or demonstration carried out and recorded by investigating police on 10 December 2014 (and the opinions proffered as result) is not admissible.

(2) The proposed demonstration whereby Detective Edmonds would be bound with tape in the witness box and asked to attempt to extricate himself is not allowed.
(3) The proposed invitation to the jury to handle the tape and to tear it is not permitted.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – Crown application to tender evidence of experiment or demonstration concerning strength of tape – evidence relevant to accused’s account of circumstances of father’s murder – where demonstration does not replicate circumstances of event – application for jury to be invited to conduct tests of tape in jury box – undesirability of jury becoming investigators – desirability of jury remaining impartial observers until all evidence tendered – various demonstrations inadmissible
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 53, 135
Cases Cited: Evans v the Queen (2007) 235 CLR 521; [2007] HCA 59
Kozul v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 221; [1981] HCA 19
State of Minnesota v Gerard J Costello 646 North Western Reporter, 2d Series 204 (Minn 2002)
Tootle v R [2017] NSWCCA 103
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): 2015/78236; 2015/120687
Publication restriction: No publication until conclusion of trial

Judgment

The Crown sought to elicit certain evidence, and to invite the jury to do certain things, that are said to be relevant to the question of the credibility of the accused’s version of the events surrounding his father’s murder. Mr Wendler, who appears for the accused, raised objection to each aspect of the Crown’s proposed presentation. The argument took place on 25 September 2017 and, to enable the parties to prepare for the final week of the prosecution case, I announced my orders and rulings on 29 September 2017. I upheld the objection in respect of each piece of evidence and each part of the prosecution’s proposed presentation and indicated that I would provide reasons later. These are my reasons.
The Crown case is that the accused attempted to murder his father in April 2014 in the father’s flat in Murwillumbah. His father was left with serious injuries but survived. The accused has, or asserts, an alibi for the date and time of that offence.
After the April incident, the deceased was in a hospital for a period and was then cared for by a former girlfriend in the area of the Glasshouse Mountains. Once that situation became untenable the accused undertook to look after…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Martin (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1344
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1344
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin (No 6) was heard in a higher court in Australia, where the defendant, Martin, was on trial for the murder of his father. The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of an experiment or demonstration concerning the strength of tape, which was relevant to Martin's account of the circumstances surrounding his father's death. The Crown applied to tender this evidence to assist the jury in understanding the circumstances of the crime. Additionally, the prosecution sought permission for the jury to conduct tests on the tape in the jury box.

The legal issues that the court had to decide revolved around the admissibility of the proposed evidence. The court needed to consider whether the experiment or demonstration accurately replicated the circumstances of the event in question and whether it was appropriate for the jury to conduct their own tests on the tape. The court also had to weigh the potential benefits of the evidence against the risk of the jury becoming involved in investigative activities, which could compromise their role as impartial observers.

The court ultimately found that the proposed experiment or demonstration did not accurately replicate the circumstances of the event, and therefore, was not admissible as evidence. Additionally, the court held that it was undesirable for the jury to conduct their own tests on the tape in the jury box, as this would involve them in investigative activities and potentially compromise their impartiality. The court emphasised the importance of the jury remaining impartial observers until all evidence had been tendered. As a result, the Crown's application to tender evidence of the experiment or demonstration was dismissed, and the application for the jury to conduct tests on the tape in the jury box was also refused.

The final orders of the court were that the proposed experiment or demonstration concerning the strength of tape was inadmissible as evidence, and the jury was not to conduct any tests on the tape in the jury box. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining the impartiality of the jury and ensuring that any evidence presented is relevant and accurate to the circumstances of the crime.

Orders