R v Rich (Ruling No 12) - [2008] VSC 519

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1535 of 2007

THE QUEEN

HUGO ALISTAIR RICH

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 November 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Rich (Ruling No. 12)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 519

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence of motive – Relevance – Admissibility – Discretion to exclude.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tinney SC with Mr S. Milesi	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond with Mr R. Edney	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

The accused is charged with armed robbery, murder and other related offences, the details of which have appeared in other rulings I have delivered in this matter.[1] Between 25 August 2008 and 31 October 2008 I have heard a variety of pre-trial issues and several Basha enquiries. The Crown case against the accused is that on 8 March 2005 at the Blackburn North Shopping Centre, he, assisted by Leonard Ryan and Sean Hogan, carried out an armed robbery resulting in $162,000 being stolen from Chubb security guards who were delivering money to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. During the course of the robbery one of the guards, Mr Erwin Kastenberger, was fatally shot. The Crown case is that the person responsible for causing the death of Mr Kastenberger was the accused, Hugo Alistair Rich.
[1]See, eg, R v Rich (Ruling No. 1) [2008] VSC 119R at [2]-[3]; R v Rich (Ruling No. 2) [2008] VSC 141 at [4]-[6].

The Crown proposes to lead evidence of the intention of the accused to purchase a company, Precision Design Australia (PDA), during the period preceding the armed robbery and murder on 8 March 2005 as demonstrating a need by him for a large amount of money. Mr Desmond, on behalf of the accused, objects to the admissibility of that evidence on the grounds that the evidence is so vague as to lack relevance and probative value. Alternatively, Mr Desmond submits that I should exclude such evidence in the exercise of my discretion on the basis that the prejudice to the accused in leading such evidence would outweigh its limited probative value. He cites the decision of the House of Lords in R v Christie[2] in support of that submission.
[2][1914] AC 545. See also Tofilau v R (2007) 231 CLR 396.

As I understand the way in which the Crown wishes to rely on this evidence, it is said to go to Mr Rich’s motive to commit an armed robbery and therefore to assist in establishing his presence and participation in the events of 8 March 2005 at North Blackburn.

The Evidence

The principal Crown witness in this trial will be Leonard Ryan who was extensively cross‑examined during a Basha enquiry before me. During that hearing, Mr Ryan did not give evidence in chief in the usual manner but rather was…

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 Rich (Ruling No 12)

Details

AGLC: R v Rich (Ruling No 12) [2008] VSC 519
Case: [2008] VSC 519
Decision Date: 27 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rich, the appellant, a person previously convicted of a serious crime, sought to appeal against his conviction, focusing on the admissibility of certain evidence presented at his trial. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant contended that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that, in his view, was irrelevant to the case and prejudicial. The Crown, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the evidence was both relevant and necessary to establish the appellant's motive and intent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior criminal conduct and statements that were alleged to demonstrate a motive for the current offence. The appellant's counsel argued that such evidence was not probative of his client's guilt in the current matter and that its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value it might have had. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence was crucial in establishing the appellant's intent and was therefore properly admitted.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the applicable principles governing the admissibility of evidence of prior criminal conduct and statements. It was noted that while such evidence is generally inadmissible to prove a person's character or propensity to commit crimes, it may be admissible for other purposes, such as to establish motive or intent. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal tests and had not erred in admitting the contested evidence. The court held that the evidence was relevant to the appellant's motive and intent, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction.

Orders