R v Nuttal & Guthrie - [2004] VSC 455

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT SHEPPARTON

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1513 of 2003

THE QUEEN

DANIEL NUTTAL AND JASON GUTHRIE

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	SHEPPARTON
DATE OF HEARING:	4 AND 5 NOVEMBER 2004
DATE OF RULING:	5 NOVEMBER 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v NUTTAL AND GUTHRIE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 455

---

Application for separate trial – Murder – Two accused – Suggestion of coercion - Application denied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Firstnamed Accused	Mr I. McIvor	Legal Aid
For the Secondnamed Accused	Mr P. Chadwick	Mr Kerry Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter the accused Daniel Nuttal and Jason Guthrie are charged with the murders of John Gordon MacKay and Allen Raymond Thomas at Shepparton on 9 February 2003. Application has been made on behalf of Nuttal for a separate trial from Guthrie.

The Crown case rests on a combination of circumstantial evidence and evidence of admission by each of the accused as to conduct prior to, at the time of, and after the killings.

It appears that there is no dispute Nuttal was involved in a sequence of events involving both accused and both victims which resulted in the death of both the deceased. Nuttal's initial account of what occurred in his record of interview is as follows:

"Saturday night, I was sitting at home and I had - had a visitor, Jason Guthrie, who had come to - come to have a drink with me. So, I - I drove him to a bottle shop where he purchased a box of bourbon and we had a fair few drinks and then some time during the night, he said he wanted to go for a drive and see someone. Didn't specify where or who or what for. So, I took him for a drive and he told me where to go and that was Ashenden Street, the home of Gordon and Allen. He's kicked in the door, the front door of the house. There were no lights on at the time and a short - short time later, came outside with Gordon and placed him in the back seat of the car and then he's gone back in to the house and retrieved Allen and dragged him out the front of the house and placed him in the boot of the car and then he's requested that I drive him to the river, which I've done at Raftery Road and after we arrived at the river, Jason has dragged Gordon from the back seat of the car and started laying in to him on the ground beside the river. At which time I was still seated in the driver's seat of the car and I - I got out of the car and walked around the vehicle to see him laying in to Gordon. And Jason has requested that I…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Nuttal & Guthrie and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] VSC 455
Decision Date: 5 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Nuttal and Guthrie, were jointly charged with the murder of a man named Peter Brown. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondents sought a separate trial on the grounds that the suggestion of coercion between them would prejudice their individual defences. The core issue for the court was whether the suggestion of coercion was sufficient to warrant a separate trial, thereby impacting the fairness of their respective defences.

The court considered the principle that the right to a fair trial is paramount, especially in cases involving multiple accused persons where there is a suggestion of coercion. The respondents argued that any suggestion of coercion would lead to a prejudicial spillover effect, compromising their ability to mount a robust defence. However, the court was not persuaded that the suggestion of coercion was strong enough to necessitate separate trials. The court held that the suggestion of coercion, while potentially prejudicial, did not reach the threshold required to warrant a separate trial. The respondents' applications for separate trials were consequently denied.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the balance between the need for a fair trial and the practicalities of managing criminal proceedings. The court emphasised that the suggestion of coercion, while relevant, must be of a significant nature to justify separate trials. Given the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the suggestion of coercion was not sufficiently compelling to alter the course of the joint trial. As such, the respondents' applications were dismissed, and they were to proceed with their joint trial.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the respondents would not be granted separate trials. The court's decision was based on the insufficient evidence of coercion to warrant separate proceedings, ensuring that the principle of fairness was upheld within the context of a joint trial.

Orders