R v Redmond - [2022] ACTSC 125

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Redmond
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 125
Hearing Date:	27 May 2022
DecisionDate:	27 May 2022
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	(a) The passages highlighted in yellow in the transcript of the record of interview with the complainant carried out on 11 February 2020 are to be edited from the interview. (b) The passages highlighted in red in the same transcript are to be dealt with in accordance with the rulings made in [10] herein. (c) Leave is given to adduce evidence pursuant to s 77 of the EMPA as set out in [11] and [12] herein.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRE-TRIAL APPLICATION – Admissibility of evidence – application for edits to the complainant’s evidence in chief interview – admissibility of evidence of complainant’s sexual activities other than those the subject of the charges
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 78 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) ss 51, 76
Cases Cited:	Partington v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 232; 197 A Crim R 380
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) James Redmond (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel A Chatterton (Crown) R Baldeo (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) David Healey Solicitors (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 17 of 2021

Elkaim J:

Mr Redmond is due to face trial on a range of sexual offences said to have been committed on 6 February 2020.

There are three applications in proceeding before the Court today:

(a)An application by the Crown, filed on 10 May 2022, for the editing of evidence contained in a recorded interview between a police officer and the complainant on 11 February 2020.
(b)An application by the Crown, filed on 10 May 2022, to adduce evidence of the sexual history of the complainant prior to the alleged offences.
(c)An application by the accused, filed on 16 May 2022, for the editing of evidence in the same recorded interview which is the subject of the Crown’s application.

The editing applications are made pursuant to s 51(3)(b) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) (EMPA). The application in respect of the complainant’s history is made pursuant to ss 76 and 77 of the same Act.

The Crown applications are supported by two affidavits of Ms Timara Callaghan, affirmed on 5 May and 6 May 2022 respectively. The accused’s application is supported by an affidavit of Ms Claire Natoli, affirmed on 12 May 2021.

It is necessary to set out a brief background to the asserted offending. The allegations are as follows:

The complainant was a sex worker at a brothel. The accused engaged her services on 6 February 2020. Initially the services were to be provided at a ‘call out’ address. However, upon arriving at the address the complainant was concerned about the number of persons present. She invited the accused to travel with her to the brothel for the performance of the services.

The pair returned to the brothel where the accused paid for the intended services. Prior to…

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 Redmond

Details

AGLC: R v Redmond [2022] ACTSC 125
Case: [2022] ACTSC 125
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Redmond involved the respondent, Redmond, who was facing charges in the criminal court. The central issue was the admissibility of certain evidence gathered during an interview with the complainant. This included specific edits to the complainant’s evidence in chief interview and whether evidence of the complainant’s sexual activities other than those directly related to the charges could be admitted. The court was tasked with deciding on the appropriate redactions and edits to the complainant's interview transcript and the admissibility of certain evidence.

The court addressed two main legal issues. First, it had to determine which parts of the complainant's evidence in chief interview were relevant and necessary for the trial, and which could be redacted to prevent any prejudicial impact on the jury. Second, the court had to decide whether evidence of the complainant's sexual activities that were not directly related to the charges should be admitted, considering the potential for prejudice and its relevance to the case. The court considered the balance between the need for a fair trial and the protection of the complainant's privacy and dignity.

In its reasoning, the court carefully examined the specific passages highlighted in the interview transcript. It ruled that the passages highlighted in yellow were to be edited out entirely from the interview. For the passages highlighted in red, the court provided detailed instructions on how they should be handled, ensuring that they did not unfairly prejudice the respondent. Additionally, the court allowed the introduction of certain evidence under section 77 of the Evidence and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (EMPA), confirming its relevance and admissibility. The court's decision was grounded in ensuring a fair trial while protecting the rights and dignity of the complainant.

The final orders of the court included specific instructions for the editing of the complainant's interview transcript and the handling of certain evidence. The court ordered that the yellow-highlighted passages be completely removed, while the red-highlighted passages were to be dealt with according to the rulings in the judgment. Furthermore, the court granted leave to adduce evidence under section 77 of the EMPA, as outlined in the relevant paragraphs of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) The passages highlighted in yellow in the transcript of the record of interview with the complainant carried out on 11 February 2020 are to be edited from the interview.

(b) The passages highlighted in red in the same transcript are to be dealt with in accordance with the rulings made in [10] herein.

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.