Legal Research
Cases
R v Paterson (No 4)

R v Paterson (No 4)

Case [2014] NSWSC 162 3 March 2014

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Lies by Accused

Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paterson (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 162
Hearing dates: 27 February 2014
Decision date: 03 March 2014
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
I direct a verdict of not guilty in respect of the offences of murder (in count 1), the alternative offence of manslaughter, the offence of aggravated sexual assault (count 2), and the statutory alternative to that count.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - trial - application for directed verdicts - accused charged with murder and aggravated sexual assault - whether the evidence capable of establishing the elements of each offence - test to be applied at the close of the Crown case
EVIDENCE - LIES BY ACCUSED - statements made by accused alleged by the Crown to be lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt - statements relied upon as part of the Crown's circumstantial case - whether relevant test met
Cases Cited: Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Bilick and Starke (1984) 36 SASR 321; (1984) 11 A Crim R 452
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v Lane (No. 13) [2010] NSWSC 1540
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 672
R v Paterson [2014] NSWSC 29
Saffron v Director of Public Prosecutions; Allen v Director of Public Prosecutions (1989) 16 NSWLR 397
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Rodney Paterson - Accused
Representation: Counsel:
Mr K McKay - Crown
Mr J Stratton SC and Ms B O'Reilly - Accused
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Peter Murphy - Accused

File Number(s): 2011/248808
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

On 10 February 2014 Rodney Paterson ("the accused") pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging the following:

(i) that he did, on or about 1 February 1992, at Bundeena in the State of New South Wales, murder Pia Navida;

(ii) that he did, on or about 1 February 1992, at Bundeena in the State of New South Wales, have sexual intercourse with Pia Navida without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that he was in the company of Steve Isac Matthews.

The accused was originally jointly indicted with Steve Isac Matthews ("Matthews"). On 3 February 2014, Matthews pleaded guilty to the murder of Pia Navida ("the deceased"). A count of aggravated sexual assault was contained in a Form 1.

At the close of the Crown case on Thursday 27 February 2014, senior counsel for the accused made an application that I direct verdicts of not guilty in respect of both counts in the indictment, along with the statutory alternative to count 1. That application was opposed by the Crown. Having heard submissions from both parties I adjourned the matter until Monday 3 March 2014 in order to deliver judgment.

AN…

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 Paterson (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Paterson (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 162
Case: [2014] NSWSC 162
Decision Date: 03 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paterson (No 4) involved the defendant, Paterson, who was on trial for the murder and aggravated sexual assault of a woman. The matter was before the court to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the elements of each offence and to consider an application for directed verdicts. The court was tasked with assessing whether the evidence was capable of proving the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and if the accused's statements, which the prosecution argued were lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt, were relevant and admissible.

The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both murder and aggravated sexual assault. The court also had to consider the admissibility and relevance of the accused's statements, which the Crown argued were lies that demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. The court needed to apply the appropriate legal tests to determine if these statements could be used as part of the circumstantial case against the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by the Crown, considering both direct and circumstantial evidence. The court found that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the elements of both murder and aggravated sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the accused's statements, the court determined that they met the relevant legal tests for admissibility and relevance. The court concluded that the statements could be considered part of the Crown's circumstantial case and contributed to establishing the defendant's guilt. Consequently, the court denied the application for directed verdicts and allowed the case to proceed to the jury.

The final orders of the court were to deny the application for directed verdicts, allowing the jury to proceed with its deliberations on the evidence presented. The defendant's trial continued, with the jury ultimately determining his guilt or innocence based on the evidence and arguments presented.

Orders