R v Mulkatana

Case [2009] NTSC 52


R v Mulkatana [2009] NTSC 52

PARTIES:  THE QUEEN
v
MULKATANA, Grant
TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTION
FILE NO:  20815593
PARTIES  THE QUEEN
v
MULKATANA, Ernest
TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTION
FILE NO:  20813202
DELIVERED:  15 OCTOBER 2009
HEARING DATES:  14 – 28 JULY 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  REEVES J
CATCHWORDS: 

Criminal Law – severance – whether count for murder can be joined with other counts – potential for complexities to distract the jury – possibility of compromised verdicts – costs to the public of two trials – loss of time and stress and inconvenience caused to witnesses

Criminal Code (NT), ss 8, 43BG, 156, 188, 213, 309, 316, 341(1), Part II,

Part IIAA

KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221
R v Christou [1997] AC 117

R v Hofschuster (1993) 65 A Crim R 167

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:  N Rogers
Defendants:  J Lewis (for Grant Mulkatana)
B Braithwaite (for Ernest Mulkatana)

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:  Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions
Defendants:  Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid
Service
Judgment category classification:  B
Judgment ID Number:  Ree0902
Number of pages:  10
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

R v Mulkatana [2009] NTSC 52

No. 20815593

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND:

GRANT MULKATANA

Defendant

No. 20813202

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Plaintiff

AND:

ERNEST MULKATANA

Defendant

CORAM:  REEVES J

REASONS FOR RULING ON SEVERANCE

(Delivered 15 October 2009)

Introduction

  1. Ernest Mulkatana and his brother Grant Mulkatana were both charged with four counts on the one indictment. Those counts were as follows:

[4]

accused, Mr Lewis, counsel for Grant Mulkatana, applied to have Counts 1

1.

That each unlawfully entered a dwelling house at night with an intention to commit an offence contrary to s 213 of the Criminal Code (NT) (‘Criminal Code’);

2.

That each assaulted Donella Hayes in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 188 of the Criminal Code;

3.

That each assaulted Jennifer Gorey in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 188 of the Criminal Code; and

4.

That each murdered Tarzan Loo contrary to s 156 of the Criminal Code.

  1. The Crown alleged that Ernest Mulkatana was the primary offender on all four counts. Grant Mulkatana was alleged to have aided and abetted Ernest Mulkatana on the murder count (under s 43BG of the Criminal Code) and formed a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose with him on Counts 1 to 3 (under s 8 of the Criminal Code). He was, therefore, alleged to have been the secondary offender on all four counts.

  2. All of the four counts against both accused arose out of a series of incidents that occurred over a short period of time at about 9.00 pm on 9 May 2008 at House 13 in the Hidden Valley Camp, Alice Springs.

    On 13 July 2009, just prior…

Details
AGLC
R v Mulkatana [2009] NTSC 52
Case
[2009] NTSC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mulkatana was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge should have severed certain counts from the indictment to ensure a fair trial for the accused. The accused, Mulkatana, faced charges related to an incident on 5 May 2008, including the assault and killing of Tarzan Loo on 9 May 2008. The prosecution argued that severing the counts would lead to a disjointed and confusing trial, impacting the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether the counts were so connected that they should be tried together and if severing them would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. The court had to balance the principle of judicial economy and the need for a fair trial against the potential prejudice that might arise from trying multiple counts together. The defence argued that severance was necessary to avoid confusion and to prevent the jury from being prejudiced by evidence that was not relevant to all charges.

The court determined that the counts were closely connected in terms of time, place, and the people involved, making it impractical to try them separately without causing confusion. The judge held that the evidence of one incident would inevitably overlap with the others, and trying the counts separately would not necessarily prevent prejudice. The court concluded that severance would not be in the interest of justice and dismissed the application to sever the counts. The trial proceeded with all counts being tried together, ensuring that the jury could understand the context and connection between the events.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Furthermore, in the case of Jennifer Gorey, she will have to suffer the stress and anguish of having to recount, on two occasions, the events of 9 May 2008 when her partner, Tarzan Loo, was allegedly assaulted and killed. The same applies to the other occupants of House 13 on the night of 9 May and the members of Tarzan Loo’s family, who are to be called as witnesses. Conclusion For these reasons I dismissed Mr Lewis’ application to sever Counts 1 to 3 from the indictment.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.