Legal Research
Cases
R v Randell

R v Randell

Case [1999] TASSC 78 29 July 1999

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Similar Fact Evidence

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[1999] TASSC 78

CITATION: R v Randell [1999] TASSC 78

PARTIES:  R
  v
  RANDELL, Steven Grant

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  100/1999
DELIVERED ON:  29 July 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  19 - 23, 26 - 28 July 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Similar facts - Relevance - Sexual offences - Circumstances in which the evidence will acquire the necessary probative value for admission - Whether striking similarities in the evidence of several complainants - Whether the probative force of such striking similarities weakened by possibility of a "cause common to the witnesses".

Rv Boardman [1975] AC 421; Makin v The Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57; Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [522]
Criminal Law - Evidence - Similar facts - Relevance - Sexual offences - Evidence of indecent assaults not the subject of a charge - Whether admissible as so called "relationship evidence".
Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106; B v R (1992) 175 CLR 599 at 602, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [522]
Criminal Law - Evidence - Similar facts - Relevance - Joinder of counts - Evidence on one count admissible on another.
Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528; De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [526]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  M A Stoddart and M S Cox
             Accused:  P E Barker and K L Baumeler
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Wilson Dowd

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 78
Number of Paragraphs: 48

Serial No 78/1999
File No 100/1999

R v STEVEN GRANT RANDELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

(RULING ON VOIR DIRE) 29 July 1999

Introduction

The accused was arraigned on an indictment containing 32 counts of indecent assault, contrary to the Criminal Code, s127. He pleaded not guilty to all counts. Counsel agreed that I should rule on certain matters of law concerning the admissibility of evidence before the jury was empanelled. The authority for taking that course is the Code, s361A. In order to determine the disputed matters of law, evidence was taken on the voir dire.

The crimes charged by the indictment are alleged to have been committed upon 15 females. The particulars to the counts allege that in the majority of the cases, the crimes were committed during late 1981 and 1982 whilst each complainant was aged about 11 years and a student at a school which employed the accused as a teacher.

The principal issue

With respect to each count on the indictment, the Crown seeks to lead, as relevant to the issue of whether the accused committed the act charged, evidence which tends to prove that the accused committed the crimes charged by all the other counts in the indictment. In addition, with respect to most counts, the Crown seeks to lead evidence of other indecent assaults on the complainants…

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 Randell

Details

AGLC: R v Randell [1999] TASSC 78
Case: [1999] TASSC 78
Decision Date: 29 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania is R v Randell, Steven Grant, where the accused was charged with multiple counts of indecent assault. The court was required to rule on the admissibility of evidence in the case, particularly focusing on similar fact evidence and the relevance of "relationship evidence." The primary legal issue was whether the evidence of the alleged indecent assaults, which was not the subject of a charge, was admissible as relevant to the relationship between the accused and the complainants or to show a "guilty passion" for the complainant. The court examined the principles of admissibility of similar fact evidence, including the requirement that such evidence must have a high probative value and cannot be reasonably explained by any other cause. The court also considered whether the evidence of the relationship between the accused and the complainants could be admitted to show the nature of the relationship and why the complainants complied with the demands of the accused. The court ruled that such relationship evidence is not admissible unless it has a specific purpose, such as proving a guilty passion, intention, or opportunity, or if it is directly relevant to an issue in the trial. The court further decided that severance of certain counts was necessary to prevent prejudice to the accused, as the similarities in the evidence of the complainants were such that they would be highly probative of the issue of whether the acts charged occurred. The court allowed the evidence of the complainants in support of certain counts to be admitted as similar fact evidence, while stipulating that counts 3, 9, 10, 13, and 26-32 be severed from the indictment and tried separately. Finally, the court ruled that the accused's silence in response to a question about the allegations could be admitted as circumstantial evidence of an admission.

Orders