R v Reed-Robertson - [2016] VSC 236

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CI 2000 1410

THE QUEEN
v
CAROLINE REED-ROBERTSON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 November 2014
DATE OF RULING:	12 May 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Reed-Robertson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 236

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Application by media for release of record of interview – Accused person declined to answer any questions – Accused later pleaded guilty to murder - Application refused – General principles relevant to such an application discussed – No admissible evidence contained in record of interview – No reliance placed on record of interview in trial judge’s reasons for sentence - Section 464JB Crimes Act 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Cashen	Macpherson & Kelley Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr G Mukherji

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application on summons by the Nine Network Australia Pty. Ltd. pursuant to s 464JB of the Crimes Act 1958. The application sought the release of a record of interview between Detective Sergeant Ross and Caroline Reed Robertson conducted on 13 March 1999.

On later arraignment, Ms Robertson pleaded guilty to the murder of Rachel Elizabeth Barber at Prahran between 28 February 1999 and 14 March 1999. On 29 November 2000, she was sentenced in this Court by Vincent J (as His Honour then was). On the count of murder she was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with 14 years and 6 months fixed as the period to be served before she became eligible for release on parole.

This is a matter that has captured the public interest from time to time.

During the course of his reasons for sentence in 2000, Vincent J reproduced a substantial part of the prosecution opening on plea and in doing so stated:[1]

It is, I think, sufficient in order to convey the essential features of the factual matrix within which the sentence is to be determined to set out a portion of the narrative provided by the prosecutor, Mr Rapke of Her Majesty's Counsel, at the time of the plea presented on your behalf, and concerning which there has been no dispute. His description, I should add, accords with my understanding of the effect of the evidence contained in the depositions.

[1]Para [2] – The Queen v Caroline Reed Robertson [2000] VSC 560.

At no stage in the course of His Honour’s sentence did Vincent J make any reference to the record of interview the subject of this application. I am unable to tell whether he was even aware of its existence. As far as I can see the record of interview did not form part of the depositions. There are good reasons why this is so. I have watched the entire interview, approximately 31 minutes in length, and it is sufficient to say that Ms Robertson exercises her entitlement not to answer any questions throughout. No admissible evidence arises from…

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 Reed-Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Reed-Robertson [2016] VSC 236
Case: [2016] VSC 236
Decision Date: 12 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reed-Robertson involved the accused, who had declined to answer any questions during a police interview, subsequently pleading guilty to the crime of murder. The media applied for the release of a record of this interview, which the accused had not participated in. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which examined the general principles governing such applications.

The court needed to decide whether the record of the interview should be released, considering the accused's refusal to participate and the subsequent plea of guilty. Key legal issues included the admissibility of the interview record and whether it contained any evidence that could be used in the trial or sentencing. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had relied on the record in delivering the reasons for the sentence.

The court reasoned that the record of the interview did not contain any admissible evidence, as the accused had not participated in it. Moreover, it was noted that the trial judge did not place any reliance on the record when delivering the reasons for the sentence. The court held that the general principles relevant to such an application dictated that the record should not be released, as it did not contribute to any part of the trial or sentencing. Consequently, the application by the media for the release of the record of the interview was refused.

The court's final orders were that the application by the media for the release of the record of the interview be dismissed. The court confirmed that the record did not contain any admissible evidence and that the trial judge had not relied on it when delivering the reasons for the sentence. The court's decision was based on the principles governing such applications and the specific circumstances of this case.

Orders