R v Peniamina - [2018] QSC 283

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Peniamina [2018] QSC 283

PARTIES:

R
v
PENIAMINA, Arona

FILE NO:

SC No 679 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Ruling

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5-12 November 2018

JUDGE:

Sofronoff P

ORDER:

The jury be permitted access in the jury room to the three audio recordings and three video recordings, together with the transcripts of those recordings.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – where the accused was charged with murdering his wife – where a question arose in the course of the trial as to how the jury could use evidence led in the form of three video recordings and three audio recordings – where transcripts were produced of the audio of each of the six recordings – whether the jury ought to be allowed access to each of the six recordings together with their transcripts during the course of deliberations in the jury room

Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; [1977] HCA 43, cited
Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; [2007] HCA 55, cited
R v GT[2005] QCA 478, cited
R v H [1999] 2 Qd R 283; [1998] QCA 348, cited
R v Rawlings [1995] 1 All ER 580, cited
R v Watts [1992] 1 Qd R 214, applied

COUNSEL:

D Balic for the prosecution
R East for the accused

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the prosecution
Legal Aid Queensland for the accused

The accused is charged with murdering his wife. When he was arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that guilty plea and a jury was empanelled to try the accused on both charges.
A question has arisen during the course of the trial about how the jury can use evidence that was led in the form of three audio recordings and three video recordings and how they can use the associated transcripts with which the jury has been provided. Mr East for the defence consents to the jury’s having these materials during their deliberations. For the following reasons I propose to allow that course.
The prosecution evidence fell into the following categories:
1.An audio recording of a conversation between the accused and police officers, and certain medical attendants, that took place immediately after the killing, referred to as “the field recording”;
2.Two audio recordings of conversations between the accused and an undercover police officer in a prison cell a few days after the killing;
3.Three video recordings pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 of evidence given by two of the accused’s young sons and of the evidence of one of their friends;
4.A description of the crime scene by two police officers, with the aid of photographs that were tendered and…

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 Peniamina

Details

AGLC: R v Peniamina [2018] QSC 283
Case: [2018] QSC 283
Decision Date: 9 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peniamina involved a murder trial where the accused was charged with the murder of his wife. The central issue before the court was whether the jury should be permitted to have access to three video recordings and three audio recordings, along with their transcripts, during their deliberations in the jury room. This issue arose due to the nature of the evidence presented, which included both visual and audio components. The defence argued that the jury should be able to refer back to these recordings to ensure a fair and accurate understanding of the evidence.

The court considered the importance of ensuring that the jury could properly evaluate all the evidence presented during the trial. It was noted that the jury's access to the recordings and their transcripts could assist them in understanding the context and nuances of the evidence, particularly in relation to the credibility of witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the alleged murder. The court acknowledged the potential for confusion or misinterpretation of the evidence if the jury were not able to review the recordings during their deliberations.

In determining the appropriate course of action, the court held that the jury should be permitted access to the three audio recordings and three video recordings, together with their transcripts, during their deliberations in the jury room. This decision was based on the principle that the jury should have the means to accurately assess all the evidence presented in the case. The court emphasised that this access would not compromise the integrity of the trial process, provided that the jury was properly directed on the use of the recordings and transcripts.

The final orders of the court were that the jury be permitted access in the jury room to the three audio recordings and three video recordings, together with the transcripts of those recordings. This decision ensures that the jury has the necessary tools to make an informed and fair decision based on all the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

The jury be permitted access in the jury room to the three audio recordings and three video recordings, together with the transcripts of those recordings.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Peniamina [2018] QSC 283
PARTIES:	R v PENIAMINA, Arona
FILE NO:	SC No 679 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Ruling
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5-12 November 2018
JUDGE:	Sofronoff P
ORDER:	The jury be permitted access in the jury room to the three audio recordings and three video recordings, together with the transcripts of those recordings.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – where the accused was charged with murdering his wife – where a question arose in the course of the trial as to how the jury could use evidence led in the form of three video recordings and three audio recordings – where transcripts were produced of the audio of each of the six recordings – whether the jury ought to be allowed access to each of the six recordings together with their transcripts during the course of deliberations in the jury room Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180; [1987] HCA 58, cited Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; [1977] HCA 43, cited Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; [2007] HCA 55, cited R v GT[2005] QCA 478, cited R v H [1999] 2 Qd R 283; [1998] QCA 348, cited R v Rawlings [1995] 1 All ER 580, cited R v Watts [1992] 1 Qd R 214, applied
COUNSEL:	D Balic for the prosecution R East for the accused
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the prosecution Legal Aid Queensland for the accused