R v Meade (Ruling No 2) - [2013] VSC 255

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0092

THE QUEEN

ROBERT ARTHUR MEADE

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 and 30 April, 2, 6, 7 and 9 May 2013
DATE OF RULING:	17 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Meade (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 255

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Trial — Murder — Relationship evidence — Application to exclude certain evidence of a co-worker of the accused — Accused said to have made statements, about two weeks before date of attack upon deceased, falsely implicating deceased in crimes against his children — Commentary by witness as to accused’s state of mind not to be led in-chief — Evidence probative of animus on part of accused towards deceased — Prejudicial effect outweighed by probative value — No reason to present evidence to jury in anodyne form — Evidence Act 2008 s 137.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R A Elston SC with Mr N A Hutton	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P J Morrissey SC with Mr D Cronin	Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Morrissey SC, on behalf of the accused, Mr Robert Meade, has submitted that I should exercise the power conferred upon me by s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (‘Evidence Act’) to exclude certain portions of the evidence that the Crown proposes to lead from Mr Charles Nesbitt, a work colleague of Mr Meade.

Mr Nesbitt first met the accused in February or March 2011 when he interviewed with Uranium Equities Ltd, the company by which the accused was then employed as General Manager of Geology. Of course, that was several months before the attack upon the accused’s former wife, Ms Brooks, on 1 July 2011. Mr Nesbitt was subsequently employed as a Senior Exploration Geologist. The accused was the head of the department for which he worked.

Subject to some minor qualifications, Mr Morrissey does not object to Mr Nesbitt giving evidence of the words attributed to the accused during the course of their various conversations, or the accused’s appearance during the course of those conversations. He accepts that Mr Nesbitt’s musings as to what the accused may have been up to during the course of those discussions might become relevant and admissible depending upon what course he adopts in cross-examination. He submits, however, that much of this material is not admissible as evidence in chief.

Mr Nesbitt’s statement to police was taken on 9 September 2011. It appears at pages 417-426 of the depositions. In addition, Mr Nesbitt appeared at the committal and was cross-examined extensively. The transcript of his evidence appears at pages 197-226 of the depositions.

It is clear that Mr Nesbitt did not take notes of, or record, the discussions that he had with the accused. He did, however, on occasion, take a note of particular conversations shortly thereafter.

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 Meade (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Meade (Ruling No 2) [2013] VSC 255
Case: [2013] VSC 255
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Meade (Ruling No 2), the respondent, Meade, was on trial for the murder of the deceased. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain statements made by the accused to a co-worker of his, two weeks prior to the attack on the deceased. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence.

The legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether the probative value of the statements outweighed the potential prejudice to the accused. The court needed to consider whether these statements were relevant to the accused's state of mind and animus towards the deceased, and whether they could be admitted under section 137 of the Evidence Act 2008. The court also needed to consider whether the commentary by the witness regarding the accused’s state of mind should be led in-chief.

The court held that the probative value of the statements outweighed any prejudicial effect they may have had. The statements were relevant to the accused's state of mind and his animus towards the deceased. The court also found that there was no reason to present the evidence to the jury in an anodyne form, as it was necessary for the jury to understand the full context of the case. Consequently, the statements were deemed admissible under section 137 of the Evidence Act 2008. However, the court ruled that the witness's commentary on the accused’s state of mind should not be led in-chief, as it was not necessary for the jury to hear it in order to make a decision.

The final orders of the court were that the statements made by the accused to his co-worker were admissible as evidence in the trial, while the witness’s commentary on the accused’s state of mind was not to be led in-chief. The court's decision allowed the jury to hear the full context of the case and consider the relevant evidence when making their decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Orders