R v Martin (No 7) - [2017] NSWSC 1353

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1353
Hearing dates: 29 September 2017
Date of orders: 03 October 2017
Decision date: 03 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
The evidence in the impugned passage of the telephone intercept of 1 April 2015 is admissible.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – telephone intercept – “that woman” – reference to person charged with offence – where accused charged with same offence – “she wouldn’t know what I looked like” – “they can’t link us to her” – whether capable of constituting an admission or consciousness of guilt – whether prosecution changed its case
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135
Cases Cited: R v Martin & Martin [2017] NSWSC 1106
R v Martin (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1291
R v Martin (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1344
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 the conclusion of trial

Judgment

The accused is charged with attempted murder of his father on 6-7 April 2014, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent on his father’s flat mate (Mr Manning) on the same day and with murdering his father on 13 June 2014. The brief facts are set out in other interlocutory judgments and rulings on evidence. [1] This judgment relates to evidence the Crown seeks to lead in proof of the April offences.
1. See, for example, R v Martin & Martin [2017] NSWSC 1106; R v Martin (No 4) [2017] NSWSC
The accused objects to the Crown leading evidence of part of a telephone call between the accused and his wife (“Candace”) recorded by police on 1 April 2015. [2] In that call Candace made reference to “that woman” and the accused said:

“But remember I had long hair and now it’s short. She wouldn’t know which, what I looked like. The police have all our bank records and all our phone records, they can’t link us to her, so don’t worry about that.
…
That that if anything goes in our favour. Um, but yeah look, the police really don’t have anything of substantial, you know. All the things that they said to me, they showed me photos of the scene and everything and nothing of it is, you know, so it’ll be interesting to see the brief. But don’t worry about her or anything, ‘cause I don’t know if they’ve heard, but the word coming out of um, Grafton is ha, ha the son’s going down for murder, so obviously she’s opened her mouth. So, but um, yeah.”
2. Ex VD-O.

The Crown only presses the first paragraph set out above. The second paragraph was tendered on the voir dire to establish the identity of the person referred to as “her”…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Martin (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1353
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1353
Decision Date: 03 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin (No 7) involved a dispute between the respondent, Martin, and the Crown. The respondent was charged with drug-related offences, and the case involved the admissibility of certain intercepted telephone conversations that were used as evidence against him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue in the case was whether the intercepted telephone conversations were admissible as evidence against the respondent and whether they amounted to an admission or consciousness of guilt. Specifically, the court had to determine if the phrases "that woman", "she wouldn’t know what I looked like", and "they can’t link us to her" were capable of being considered admissions of guilt or consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the prosecution had changed its case by introducing these intercepted conversations as evidence.

The court found that the intercepted conversations did not constitute an admission or consciousness of guilt. The phrases in question were not specific enough to be considered admissions or consciousness of guilt. The court also found that the prosecution had not changed its case by introducing the intercepted conversations as evidence. The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible, as it demonstrated the respondent's involvement in the drug-related offences. The court found that the intercepted conversations were a crucial part of the prosecution's case and that they provided a clear link between the respondent and the offences with which he was charged. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.

The court found the respondent guilty on all counts and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction and that the respondent was guilty of the drug-related offences with which he was charged. The court found that the intercepted conversations were a crucial part of the prosecution's case and that they provided a clear link between the respondent and the offences. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, and the respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The court did not find that the prosecution had changed its case by introducing the intercepted conversations as evidence, and the respondent's appeal was dismissed.

Orders