R v Redmond - [2006] VSCA 75

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN
THE QUEEN	No. 89 of 2005
v.
MICHAEL JAMES REDMOND
THE QUEEN	No. 83 of 2005
v.
NICOLE MAREE REDMOND

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., BUCHANAN and ASHLEY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	WARRNAMBOOL
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 March 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 75	1st Revision – 6 April 2006

---

Criminal Law – Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Consciousness of guilt – Lies told by accused were an element of the offence – Lies incapable of exhibiting consciousness of guilt of charged offence – Discretion to direct a verdict of acquittal.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C. with Ms E.J. Gardner	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Michael Redmond	Mr D.E. Dann	V.G. Peters
For the Applicant Nicole Redmond	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr J.P. Dickinson	Tait Leishman Taylor

WARREN, C.J.:

I invite Buchanan, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

The applicants seek leave to appeal against their conviction on a joint charge of perverting the course of justice after a trial in the County Court at Warrnambool. Nicole Redmond was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of three months. Michael Redmond was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of four months. Both sentences were suspended for a period of twelve months.

It was alleged in the presentment that the applicants -

"Between the 18th day of December 2003 and the 24th day of December 2003, with intent to pervert the course of justice, did a series of acts which had the tendency to pervert the course of justice in that they
(a) approached Jason Lee Fleming and attempted to persuade him to give a false account as to who was present and what occurred during a trip to Tower Hill on or about the 7th day of December 2003; and
(b) when questioned by the police, gave a false account as to who was present and what occurred during a trip to Tower Hill on or about the 7th day of December 2003."

The applicants are brother and sister. In December 2003, Nicole Redmond was 24 years old and Michael Redmond was 22 years old. In the trial of the applicants, a 13-year-old girl (whom I shall call "the complainant") gave evidence that she and a number of other young persons spent the night of Saturday 6 December 2003 driving in cars and visiting houses in Warrnambool. At about midnight, Michael Redmond retrieved his car from his sister's house. One of their friends, Jason Fleming, drove Michael Redmond's car, containing the complainant, Michael Redmond, Daniel Leonard and Amber Harris, to Tower Hill. Nicole Redmond was not in the party. When they arrived at Tower Hill, the others left the complainant and Michael Redmond alone in the car. Later, Jason Fleming drove the group back to the house from which the expedition had started.

On 11 December 2003, the…

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 [2006] VSCA 75
Case: [2006] VSCA 75
Decision Date: 29 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Redmond involved the appellant who was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The dispute centred around whether the appellant’s false statements, which were an integral part of the offence, could also demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, the apex court in the Australian legal system.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the lies told by the appellant could, in themselves, constitute evidence of his consciousness of guilt. Secondly, whether these lies could also be considered an element of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appellant argued that the lies, as elements of the offence, could not simultaneously serve as evidence of his consciousness of guilt, and thus a verdict of acquittal should be directed.

The court examined the nature of the offence and held that the lies told by the appellant were integral to the offence charged, but they could not be used to establish his consciousness of guilt. The court reasoned that if the lies were both the offence and evidence of consciousness of guilt, it would create an illogical scenario where the accused could be found guilty without any independent evidence of his awareness of wrongdoing. This reasoning led the court to conclude that the trial judge had the discretion to direct a verdict of acquittal, given that the lies could not serve both functions.

Consequently, the court upheld the appeal and quashed the conviction. The High Court's decision underscored the necessity for a clear distinction between the elements of the offence and the evidence of consciousness of guilt in criminal trials. This distinction ensures that the accused’s culpability is properly assessed and that the evidence relied upon is legally sound.

Orders