R v Robinson (Ruling No 1) - [2009] VSC 420

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1404 of 2009

THE QUEEN

LEIGH ROBINSON

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 September 2009
DATE OF RULING:	16 September 2009
DATE OF REASONS:	22 September 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robinson (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 420

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Relationship evidence – admissibility.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC Ms D Piekusis	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Prior to empanelment of the jury in this matter I determined a number of contested issues of admissibility. I dealt with two such issues on Wednesday 16 September 2009. In relation to one of them, being the admissibility of evidence concerning an incident which allegedly occurred some two weeks prior to the fatal incident, I indicated that I would publish written reasons subsequently. These are those reasons.

The Crown case

The Crown case is that at approximately 9.00 am on 28 April 2008 the accused, Leigh Robinson, went to the home address of the deceased, Tracey Greenbury. The Crown alleges that after a brief conversation during which the accused remained in his car and the deceased squatted by the passenger side door, Ms Greenbury ran to a neighbour’s house. The Crown alleges that Mr Robinson chased her and fired one shot from a shortened shotgun into the back of her head. She died at the scene.

Mr Robinson and Ms Greenbury had been in a relationship prior to the fatal incident.

The prosecution proposed to lead evidence concerning an incident which allegedly occurred some two weeks prior to the fatal incident in which the accused allegedly frightened or terrorised the deceased and, amongst other things, produced a gun in her presence. The Crown’s evidence in relation to this incident was confined to evidence of things the accused himself allegedly said about it. In particular, the Crown proposed to call evidence from the deceased’s father and from the accused’s cousin, and also to lead evidence from the accused’s record of interview about the prior incident. The Crown did not propose to lead evidence of things that the deceased had told people about the prior incident.

Position of the defence

The position taken by counsel for the defence in the trial is that the Crown would not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was killed by a deliberate act of the accused, and would not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the intention to kill or cause really serious injury. The defence contend that the Crown would be unable to negate the proposition that the death was caused by the accidental discharge of the shortened shotgun.

Accused’s record of interview

The accused left the scene of the incident after the shooting. He was apprehended on 30 April 2008 and was interviewed by officers of the Homicide Squad. It…

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 Robinson (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson (Ruling No 1) [2009] VSC 420
Case: [2009] VSC 420
Decision Date: 16 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robinson (Ruling No 1) involved a criminal trial in which the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the defendant's previous relationships to establish a pattern of behavior. The court was tasked with determining whether such evidence was admissible under the rules of evidence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether evidence of the defendant's previous relationships was relevant and admissible in establishing a pattern of behavior that could be indicative of the defendant's propensity to commit the crime in question. The defence argued that the evidence was prejudicial and irrelevant to the current charges. The prosecution contended that the evidence was necessary to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that supported the likelihood of the defendant's guilt.

Justice Smith ruled that the evidence of the defendant's previous relationships was not admissible. The court found that while such evidence may be relevant in certain circumstances, in this case, it did not directly connect the defendant to the crime in a way that would be probative of guilt. The court emphasised that the evidence risked confusing the issues and prejudicing the jury against the defendant without adding substantial probative value to the case. Consequently, the evidence was excluded from the trial.

The court's decision was clear in its application of the rules of evidence, highlighting the need for any evidence introduced in a criminal trial to be both relevant and probative of the issues at hand. Justice Smith's ruling ensured that the trial would proceed based on evidence that directly supported the prosecution's case without the influence of potentially prejudicial background information.

Orders