R v Munce - [2001] NSWSC 1072

CITATION: Regina v Munce [2001] NSWSC 1072

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70018/01

HEARING DATE(S): 12/11/01 - 14/11/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 November 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
John Raymond Munce

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan J

COUNSEL : L Babb (Crown)
M Williams QC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Greg Murray

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - record of interview - admissibility of record of interview considered on a voir dire examination - where record of interview considered to have little probative value - weight to be given to record of interview matter for jury

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s 85(1)(2)(3); s 90; s 135; s 137

CASES CITED: Charajit Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R
R v Rooke, unreported, CCANSW, 2 September 1997
R v Braun, unreported, SCNSW, 24 October 1997
R v Taylor [1999] ACTSC 47, 26 May 1999
R v Swaffied; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159
Sinclair v The King [1946] 73 CLR 316
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) CLR 297

DECISION: See para 44

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
criminal DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

WEDNESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2001

70018/01 - REGINA v John Raymond MUNCE

Judgment: Voir Dire on admissibility of Record of Interview.

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, John Raymond Munce, has been charged with the murder of Leslie Forrest. Mr Forrest died on 21 January 1971, after he fell down the steps of a companionway leading from the deck at the level of the recreation room to the deck at the level of the mess room on the merchant ship “Ngahere”. The ship was berthed in Newcastle harbour.

2 Following a coronial inquiry, a finding of accidental death was brought in by the Coroner.

3 The “Ngahere” was a New Zealand vessel and many of its crew lived in New Zealand. The accused was a young seaman on the “Ngahere” at the time and continued as a seaman for some years after the incident. He has not been to sea for many years.

4 On 11 November 1999 the accused contacted police in Auckland and in a formal interview, by way of ERISP, admitted that he had kicked Forrest deliberately causing him to fall down the steps, where he died. However, he also made other statements and the ERISP contains both admissions from the accused that he caused or contributed to Forrest’s fall as well as statements which contradict those admissions.

5 The Crown has now indicated that during the course of the trial it proposes to tender the ERISP conducted at the Auckland Central police station. Apart from some evidence of Mr Bidgood, who was a seaman on the ship, and a psychiatrist, Dr O’Dea, the ERISP will constitute the Crown case.

6 Mr Bidgood did not see the incident, but gave evidence of an earlier incident, which may provide a motive for the accused to have harmed the deceased. Dr O’Dea examined the accused and also considered the ERISP.

7 The admissibility of…

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 Munce

Details

AGLC: R v Munce [2001] NSWSC 1072
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1072
Decision Date: 14 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Munce involved the defendant being charged with various offences including murder. The dispute centred around the admissibility of a record of an interview conducted by police with the defendant, which was sought to be admitted as evidence at trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the record of the police interview should be admitted as evidence, and if so, how much weight should be given to it by the jury.

The central legal issue was the admissibility of the record of the police interview and the appropriate weight to be assigned to it if admitted. The court considered whether the record had probative value that substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. This involved an assessment of the circumstances under which the interview was conducted, the reliability of the recording, and the content of the interview itself.

The Supreme Court found that the record of the interview had little probative value, primarily due to the unreliable nature of the recording and the circumstances under which it was obtained. However, the court held that despite its limited probative value, the record could still be admitted as evidence. The weight to be given to the record of the interview was determined to be a matter for the jury. The court emphasised that it was not for the court to assess the credibility or reliability of the evidence but rather to ensure that it was admissible and that any prejudicial effect was not disproportionate to its probative value.

The court's decision resulted in the record of the police interview being admitted as evidence, but with the instruction that the jury should consider its limited probative value when assessing its reliability and credibility.

Orders