R v Martin (No 8) - [2017] NSWSC 1355

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin (No 8) [2017] NSWSC 1355
Hearing dates: 29 September 2017
Date of orders: 03 October 2017
Decision date: 03 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Subject to the concessions made by the Crown as to the manner in which the evidence will be adduced, and to the contents of this judgment, the evidence is admissible.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – lies – consciousness of guilt – where accused allegedly killed father using samurai sword – katana – uncontested evidence that accused owned katana – where accused told investigating police that Queensland police seized sword – where evidence may disclose fact of earlier police investigation or offence – assessment of probative value – considerations of whether evidence can be presented to reduce or eliminate prejudice
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 135 and 137
Cases Cited: Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57
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 objects to the prosecution adducing evidence of certain answers he gave to investigating police in the course of a lengthy interview with police on 23 April 2015. The Crown says that the answers constitute lies capable of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. The accused submits that the evidence is unfairly prejudicial because it will either disclose that he committed (or was alleged to have committed) another, unrelated, offence or that the evidence will invite speculation on the part of the jury. The Crown says that the evidence can be elicited in such a way that will minimise the possible prejudice and that any potential for prejudice can be cured by direction.
The Crown case is that the accused murdered his father in the early morning of Friday 13 June 2014. The Crown will invite the jury to infer that he did so by using a samurai sword (“katana”). There is evidence that the accused purchased such a sword from an instructor, Mr Friis, although the evidence is not clear as to precisely when the sword was purchased. There is also evidence that the accused was trained in martial arts including in the use of the weapon and that he was proficient in the use of the weapon. [1] One of his neighbours gave evidence that he showed her a samurai sword in 2012. As I understand it, the evidence will be that the police were unable to locate the sword in the course of their investigations in 2014 and 2015.
1. Transcript (T) 806.
The impugned evidence concerns answers the accused gave as to the whereabouts of the katana. He told the investigators that Queensland police took the sword from him…

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 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Martin (No 8) [2017] NSWSC 1355
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1355
Decision Date: 03 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Martin, the accused faced charges of murder, having allegedly killed his father using a samurai sword known as a katana. The dispute reached the court, where the admissibility of certain evidence became a central issue. The contested evidence included the fact that the accused had informed the investigating police that a katana had been seized by Queensland police. The court had to determine whether this evidence was admissible and, if so, how it should be weighed in the context of the trial.

The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of evidence that could potentially reveal prior police investigations or offences. The court needed to balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effects it might have on the accused. The court considered whether the evidence could be presented in a manner that reduced or eliminated potential prejudice to the accused, ensuring that the evidence's relevance to the current charges was not overshadowed by its potential to inflame the jury's sentiments.

The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the accused's consciousness of guilt and could be presented in a way that mitigated potential prejudice. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have, and thus, it was deemed admissible. The court acknowledged the necessity of allowing such evidence to be considered in the context of the broader circumstances of the case.

The court ruled that the contested evidence was admissible, subject to appropriate conditions to manage any potential prejudice. The final orders reflected this decision, ensuring that the evidence could be presented to the jury while protecting the accused's rights.

Orders