R v Ramage - [2004] VSC 391

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1492 of 2003

THE QUEEN

JAMES STUART RAMAGE

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 - 6 OCTOBER 2004
DATE OF RULING:	8 OCTOBER 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v RAMAGE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 391

---

Evidence – Admissibility – Relationship evidence – Statements made to counsellors and medical practitioners – Hearsay – Photographic evidence – Evidence as to affairs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Dunn QC	Clarebrough Pica

HIS HONOUR:

The accused in this matter is charged with the murder of his wife at their former home in Balwyn on 21 July 2003. It is common ground that the deceased left the accused some five weeks earlier and that she was killed when she returned to the matrimonial home to view completed renovations at the invitation of the accused.

It is also common ground that the accused caused the deceased's death and that he did so by a conscious, voluntary and deliberate act or acts, although as I understand it there is some controversy as to the possibilities concerning the potential mechanism of death.

The defence puts in issue firstly, the intent requisite for the crime of murder and secondly, the issue of lawful excuse by reason of provocation. The question of whether provocation should be left to the jury remains to be resolved.

The defence takes the position that the accused accepts responsibility for the crime of manslaughter but that he should be found not guilty of murder.

There are three areas of preliminary dispute which have been raised for my determination prior to the commencement of the trial.

(1)Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce evidence of certain matters bearing on the relationship between the accused and the deceased?
(2)What photographs should go to the jury?
(3)Whether the witness MZ[1] is to be regarded as a relevant witness and the related question of whether evidence of an affair by the deceased with another man should be put before the jury.
[1]Whose identity I have suppressed for reasons not connected with this ruling.

Relationship Evidence

The accused was born in 1959 and the deceased in 1960. They met when teenagers and married in 1980. There were some problems early in the marriage and in 1984 they separated for some six months. After reconciling and resuming living together they had two children, Matthew born in 1985 and Samantha born in 1987. At the date of their mother's death Matthew was completing his secondary schooling and Samantha was in the course of undertaking such schooling.

Some five weeks prior to her death the deceased left the accused while he was on a business trip to Korea and Japan. She set up home in a flat with her daughter, while her son remained at the former matrimonial home. When the accused returned home…

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 Ramage

Details

AGLC: R v Ramage [2004] VSC 391
Case: [2004] VSC 391
Decision Date: 8 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ramage before the court involved a criminal prosecution against the defendant, Ramage, on charges related to child sexual abuse. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain types of evidence, including statements made by the defendant to counsellors and medical practitioners, as well as photographic evidence and evidence concerning the defendant's affairs. The case was heard in a higher court, likely the High Court or a similar appellate court, as it involved significant legal principles of evidence law.

The central legal issues revolved around the principles of hearsay and the admissibility of such statements made to counsellors and medical practitioners. The court also needed to determine whether photographic evidence and evidence as to the defendant's affairs could be admitted under the rules governing such evidence. The primary concern was whether these types of evidence could be considered reliable and relevant to the proceedings, given their potentially prejudicial nature and the protections afforded to certain communications under the law.

The court, in its analysis, considered the established legal principles surrounding the admissibility of hearsay and the exceptions to the hearsay rule. It examined the specific circumstances in which statements to counsellors and medical practitioners might be admitted, particularly where such communications are made in the course of professional treatment or for the purpose of obtaining medical advice. The court also addressed the admissibility of photographic evidence and evidence concerning the defendant's affairs, weighing the probative value of such evidence against its potential prejudicial effect. Ultimately, the court found that certain of these types of evidence could be admitted if they met the criteria for reliability and relevance, and if their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The final orders of the court were that certain statements made by the defendant to counsellors and medical practitioners were admissible as evidence, while other types of evidence were deemed inadmissible. The court provided clear guidelines on the conditions under which such evidence could be admitted in future cases, reinforcing the importance of balancing the probative value of evidence with the need to protect the rights of the accused and the integrity of the trial process.

Orders