R v Matheson - [2001] NSWSC 216

CITATION: R v Matheson [2001] NSWSC 216

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70032/00

HEARING DATE(S): 19 - 20 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Danny Raymond George Matheson

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

COUNSEL : P Barnett (Crown)
J. Stratton (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S. O'Connor (Crown)
B. Duchen (Accused)

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act - s 108

CASES CITED: R v Rowe [2001] NSWCCA 1

DECISION: The evidence of the alleged admission is inadmissible and is rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 21 March 2001

70032/00 - REGINA v DANNY RAYMOND GEORGE MATHESON

JUDGMENT ON ADMISSIBLITY OF EVIDENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused has been indicted for the murder of his ex de facto partner. When arraigned the accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept this plea in satisfaction of the indictment and, therefore, the trial of the accused on the charge of murder is to proceed. At the outset of the trial an objection was raised by Mr Stratton, counsel for the accused, to evidence which the Crown intends to lead of an admission allegedly made by the accused as to the circumstances in which the deceased was shot by him. I was asked to deal with this objection before the Crown opens its case to the jury.

2 The admission is alleged to have occurred during a telephone conversation between a police officer and the accused, which took place before the accused was arrested for any offence. It has been submitted by Mr Stratton that the part of the conversation containing the alleged admission is rendered inadmissible by s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3 That section provides in effect that an admission which has been made by a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence in the course of "official questioning" by a police officer and which relates to an indictable offence (other than an offence which can be dealt with summarily without the accused's consent) is not admissible unless there is available to the court a tape recording of the interview in which the admission is made. Although there are circumstances in which an admission may be received in evidence, even though no tape recording of the admission is available to the court, those circumstances do not apply in this case.

4 It has been accepted by both the Crown and Mr Stratton that the admissibility of the alleged admission would depend upon whether or not the conversation between the police officer and the accused occurred in the course of "official questioning" as defined in subsection 108 (4). The relevant part of the section is as follows:

"Official questioning means questioning by an investigating official in connection with the investigation of the commission or possible commission of an offence".

5 The circumstances giving rise to the conversation between the police officer and the accused can be stated briefly. On 2 October 1999 police officers Saunders and Hamlin…

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 Matheson

Details

AGLC: R v Matheson [2001] NSWSC 216
Case: [2001] NSWSC 216
Decision Date: 21 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Danny Raymond George Matheson, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered an objection to the admissibility of an alleged admission made by the accused during a conversation with a police officer. The accused was on trial for the murder of his ex de facto partner, with the Crown proceeding on the charge of murder despite the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter. The objection was raised to a part of the telephone conversation between the accused and a police officer, which took place before the accused was arrested for any offence. The admissibility of the alleged admission was challenged under section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that an admission made by a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence during "official questioning" by a police officer is inadmissible unless there is a tape recording of the interview.

The legal issue before the court was whether the conversation between the police officer and the accused constituted "official questioning" as defined in subsection 108(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court examined the circumstances in which the conversation took place, including the officers' intentions and the nature of their questioning. The court concluded that the questioning was indeed "official questioning" as it occurred in the course of investigating the commission or possible commission of an offence by the accused. The court held that the section renders the evidence of the alleged admission inadmissible and, therefore, it must be rejected.

The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the term "official questioning" and the purpose of the legislation. The court found that the section was not concerned with the purpose of the questioning but rather with the circumstances in which the questioning took place. The court adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "in connection with" to give the section its widest application, consistent with the policy behind the legislation to protect against fabricated admissions and to minimise disputes about the making of admissions in criminal proceedings.

The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to legislative requirements for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The evidence of the alleged admission was rejected, and the trial proceeded without that evidence being presented to the jury. This case underscores the need for police officers to be aware of the legal implications of their interactions with suspects and to ensure that any questioning is conducted in accordance with the law.

Orders