R v Meyn, John Michael (No 5) - [2012] NSWSC 1590

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MEYN, John Michael (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 1590
Hearing dates: 19-23, 27-30 November, 3 December 2012
Decision date: 03 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Evidence of prior assault of deceased rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - domestic homicide - evidence of prior domestic violence - relationship evidence - whether tendency evidence - whether significant probative value.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 - s 97
Cases Cited: - R v Cittadini [2008] NSWCCA 256; 189 A Crim R 492
- R v Meyn (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1449
- R v Serratore [2001] NSWCCA 123
Category: Interlocutory applications
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

Judgment

On the fourth day of this trial, 3 December 2012, objection was taken by Senior Counsel for the accused, Mr Chapple SC, to the Crown leading certain evidence from Ms Angela Walkerden which I will describe. After argument, I indicated that I rejected the evidence and stated I would provide my reasons later. These are my reasons for that ruling.

In brief summary, the Crown case is that on the morning of 8 April 2011 the accused hit and strangled his ex-partner. This is said to have occurred after she attended at a "granny flat" at the back of his parents' home in which the accused resided. She attended with their infant son. The Crown alleges that while their son was asleep they had sex and that the accused then killed her. The Crown alleges that the accused was possessive of the deceased and jealous of any suggestion that she could see anyone else. In opening the Crown Prosecutor stated:

"The Crown case will be that the accused was driven by his jealousy over the fact that the deceased was using this internet dating site. He asked her questions about it, that she got angry, he got angry, and that as a result of that scenario, he then hit her a number of times to the head and strangled her. It is my understanding that the accused will be saying that he was acting in self defence."

There has been evidence tendered indicating that the relationship between the accused and the deceased commenced sometime around 2006 to 2007 and that they commenced living together soon after. They have two sons together. They ceased living together in February 2011. As I have stated part of the Crown case is that the accused was possessive of the deceased and jealous of the possibility of her seeing other men even after they ceased living together. Evidence has been adduced indicating that on the afternoon of the day that the deceased died the accused twice contacted a male friend of hers and asked if he and the deceased were seeing each other.

Ms Angela Walkerden gave…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Meyn, John Michael (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 1590
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1590
Decision Date: 03 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meyn, John Michael (No 5) was heard in a court where the defendant was charged with the murder of his wife. The central issue was the admissibility of evidence related to prior incidents of domestic violence and the overall relationship context. The court had to determine whether this evidence was relevant and whether it held significant probative value that could assist in understanding the circumstances of the homicide.

The legal issues focused on the rules governing the admissibility of tendency evidence under the Uniform Evidence Acts. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the evidence of prior domestic violence and the broader relationship context was admissible under the provisions that allow for such evidence when it has significant probative value. This required a careful analysis of the evidence's relevance to the case and its potential impact on the jury's understanding of the events leading up to the homicide.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence of prior domestic violence and the relationship context was indeed relevant and had significant probative value. The court concluded that this evidence was necessary to provide a complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the homicide, including the defendant's state of mind and the dynamics of the relationship. Consequently, the evidence was deemed admissible, and the court ruled in favour of the prosecution's ability to present this material to the jury. The court's decision ensured that the jury could consider all relevant factors in determining the defendant's guilt.

Orders