R v Robb - [2015] VSC 479

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0123

THE QUEEN

KRISTY ROBB

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2015
DATE OF RULING:	8 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robb
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 479

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Application to exclude evidence of medical opinion – Application to exclude evidence concerning deceased’s dog.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC with Ms S. Coombes	Ms V. Anscombe, Acting Solicitors for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Mylonas	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

The accused, Ms Kristy Robb, is charged with manslaughter contrary to common law in that it is alleged she killed Mr Alan Dennis Matthews on 30 January 2014. Alternatively, she is charged that on 30 January 2014, she, without lawful excuse, intentionally caused serious injury to Mr Alan Dennis Matthews contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Yesterday, I heard submissions on a number of pre-trial matters raised by Mr Mylonas, who appears on behalf of the accused.

The background to these charges is as follows. In the early morning at around 2.30am on 30 January 2014, the accused, with Mr Gino Rachele, attended the home of Mr Matthews at 25 Henry Street, Noble Park, for the purpose of retrieving items belonging to the accused held by Mr Matthews on account of what Mr Matthews claimed was outstanding rent for bungalow accommodation that had been briefly used by Ms Robb.

During the course of removing items, an altercation occurred inside the bungalow. The prosecution case is that the accused caused serious injury to Mr Matthews by striking him a number of times to the head and body with a blunt weapon and stomping on him, causing a fracture of the sternum.

After the altercation in the bungalow, the accused, with Mr Rachele, left Mr Matthews’ premises in Mr Rachele’s motor vehicle. Police were contacted by Mr Matthews at 2.53am. Mr Matthews informed the 000 operator that he had been ‘bashed by a woman and bloke who come to get some stuff [sic]’ because ‘she had a bungalow here and I held some – held a couple of things back from them because they owed me rent … They bashed me with something and I think it was a torch. I’m not sure’. Mr Matthews provided the operator with the name and mobile telephone number of Ms Robb.

Police attended the premises a short time later when they located Mr Matthews dead in the bathroom.

An autopsy on the body of Mr Matthews revealed areas of blunt force injury to the scalp, central and left side of the chest and bruising to the limbs. Further, Mr Matthews was found at autopsy to have significant ischaemic heart disease. The prosecution allege the multiple injuries, combined with the physical and psychological stress associated with these events, triggered a myocardial infarction…

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 Robb

Details

AGLC: R v Robb [2015] VSC 479
Case: [2015] VSC 479
Decision Date: 8 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robb, the appellant, Michael Robb, was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case involved the death of a deceased individual, the cause of which was disputed. The respondent, the Crown, sought to introduce evidence of the deceased’s dog as part of their case. Robb applied to exclude this evidence, arguing that it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence and its relevance to the charge of manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence concerning the deceased's dog was admissible and relevant to the case, and if it had the potential to unfairly prejudice the appellant. The court considered the principles of relevance and fairness in evidence, particularly focusing on whether the evidence of the dog could assist in understanding the circumstances leading to the deceased’s death. The appellant argued that the evidence was extraneous and would mislead the jury, whereas the Crown maintained that it was pertinent to the context of the incident.

The court, after careful deliberation, found that the evidence of the deceased’s dog was relevant to the circumstances of the incident and could provide context that was pertinent to the charge. The court held that the evidence was not irrelevant and did not unfairly prejudice the appellant to the extent that it should be excluded. The relevance of the dog's presence and its potential impact on the scene were deemed significant enough to warrant its inclusion in the trial. Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge, thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for manslaughter. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the totality of evidence in criminal cases, ensuring that relevant and probative evidence is not unduly excluded.

Orders