R v Meyn, John Michael (No 2) - [2012] NSWSC 1449

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MEYN, John Michael (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1449
Hearing dates: 19, 20, 21 November 2012
Decision date: 21 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Tender of tendency evidence rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - tendency - domestic homicide - murder - application on voir dire to adduce evidence that the accused has a tendency to act in a violent way when he has a disagreement with a person with whom he has or had an intimate relationship - alleged attempt to strangle previous partner's male colleague - alleged attempt to strangle previous partner - accused caused self harm following dispute with previous partner - similarity of acts - distance in time - whether significant probative value to facts in issue.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 - s 55, s 97, s 98, s 101, s 138
Cases Cited: - Bangaru v R [2012] NSWCCA 204
- DSJ v R [2012] NSWCCA 9; 259 FLR 262
- R v Cittadini [2008] NSWCCA 256; 189 A Crim R 492
- R v Fletcher [2005] NSWCCA 338; 156 A Crim R 308
- R v Meyn (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1441
- R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; 205 A Crim R 75
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crown (Prosecutor)
John Michael Meyn (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
T.W. Thorpe (Crown)
K.A. Chapple SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
George Sten & Co (Accused)

File Number(s): 2011/116480

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The Crown has applied to lead tendency evidence which I will describe. Senior Counsel for the accused, Mr Chapple SC, objects to the tender of this material.

The accused has been arraigned on a charge that on 8 April 2011 he did murder Yvette Rathbone. He has pleaded not guilty to that charge. It is anticipated he will be arraigned again before a jury shortly and will maintain that plea.

By way of brief summary, the Crown case is that the accused and bashed strangled Ms Rathbone, who was his ex-girlfriend and mother of his children. They had been in a relationship since 2005. It is said to have ended some months before the killing. The accused returned to live in the garage of his parents' home after the relationship ended. Ms Rathbone's body was discovered in that garage on the morning of 8 April 2011 by the accused's mother. It is anticipated that the Crown's forensic expert will give evidence that the cause of her death was head injuries and asphyxiation.

The accused participated in an Electronically Recorded Interview with a Suspected Person ERISP on the evening of 8 April 2011 and extending into the morning of 9 April 2011. Its admissibility was the subject of challenge, a challenge which I have rejected (R v Meyn [2012] NSWSC 1441). Building in part on the contents of that interview, in short, the Crown case is that the accused strangled and…

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 Meyn, John Michael (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Meyn, John Michael (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1449
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1449
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the prosecution of John Michael Meyn, who was charged with the murder of his partner, Amy Neylan. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether evidence of the accused's violent behaviour towards other individuals could be admitted as it pertained to a tendency to act in a violent way when he had a disagreement with someone with whom he had an intimate relationship. Specifically, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of two incidents in which the accused allegedly attempted to strangle a male colleague of his previous partner and also attempted to strangle the previous partner herself. Additionally, the prosecution sought to present evidence of the accused's self-harming behaviour following a dispute with the previous partner.

The court had to determine if the proposed evidence had sufficient probative value to the facts in issue, despite the distance in time between the events and the charged offence. The court considered the similarities between the acts and the relevance of the accused's conduct to his propensity for violence in the context of intimate relationships. After weighing the probative value against the potential prejudice to the accused, the court concluded that the evidence was of significant probative value and should be admitted.

The court found that the evidence of the accused's violent conduct towards others, particularly those with whom he had an intimate relationship, was relevant to establishing his tendency to act violently in similar circumstances. The court held that the similarity of acts and the context of the intimate relationships provided a sufficient basis for the evidence to be admitted. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence could be presented to the jury. The final orders of the court allowed the prosecution to adduce the contested evidence in the trial.

Orders