R v Mulkatana [2009] NTSC 52
PARTIES: THE QUEEN v MULKATANA, Grant TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORYJURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTIONFILE NO: 20815593 PARTIES THE QUEEN v MULKATANA, Ernest TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORYJURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTIONFILE 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 117R 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
ProsecutionsDefendants: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid
ServiceJudgment category classification: B Judgment ID Number: Ree0902 Number of pages: 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGSR 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
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.
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.
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…
- AGLC
- R v Mulkatana [2009] NTSC 52
- Case
- [2009] NTSC 52
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.