R v Rodney Paterson (No 1) - [2014] NSWSC 29

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rodney Paterson (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 29
Hearing dates: 4 February 2014
Decision date: 06 February 2014
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1.The evidence of the witnesses Innis and Flagg will be admitted.
2.The evidence of those parts of the conversation of 10 August 2009 in which there was discussion about the accused's involvement in a previous instance of group sex will be excluded.
3.The evidence of the entirety of the conversation of 30 September 2011 will be excluded.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE - tendency evidence - whether evidence relied upon as tendency evidence had significant probative value - whether other inferences relied upon by the Crown reasonably open
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 NSW
Cases Cited: GBF v R [2010] VSCA 135
KRI v R [2011] VSCA 127
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319; (2003) 58 NSWLR 700
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306
R v PWD
R v Suteski [2002] NSWCCA 509; (2002) 56 NSWLR 182
R v Watkins (2005) NSWCCA 164
Zaknic Pty v Svelte Corporation Pty Limited (1995) 61 FCR 171
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina - Crown
Rodney Paterson - Accused
Representation: Counsel:
Mr K McKay - Crown
Mr J Stratton SC and Ms B O'Reilly - Accused
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Peter Murphy - Accused

File Number(s): 2011/248808
Publication restriction: NIL

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Rodney Paterson ("the accused") has pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging the following offences:

(i) that he did, on or about 1 February 1992, at Bundeena in the State of New South Wales, murder Pia Navida;

(ii) that he did, on or about 1 February 1992, at Bundeena in the State of New South Wales, in the company of Steve Isac Matthews, have sexual intercourse with Pia Navida without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that they were in the company of each other.

I have been asked to determine, in advance of the commencement of the accused's trial, whether three particular pieces of evidence sought to be relied upon by the Crown, to which objection has been taken on behalf of the accused, should be admitted. In order to place the issues into their proper context, it is necessary for me to set out in broad terms the nature of the Crown case. The following summary is drawn largely from the Crown Case Statement which has been filed.

THE CROWN CASE

At about midday on Saturday 1 February 1992, two persons were walking along a bush track in the Royal National Park near Bundeena. In the course of doing so, they came across the body of a naked woman. In the immediate vicinity there were a number of personal effects, including deodorant and underwear. A large bloodstained rock was found nearby.

The body was later identified as that of Pia Navida ("the deceased"). It was determined that her death had been caused by head injuries inflicted by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rodney Paterson (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 29
Decision Date: 06 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodney Paterson was charged with various offences relating to the sexual abuse of children. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility and weight of certain evidence presented by the prosecution. The defence argued that some of the evidence was of limited probative value and could potentially prejudice the jury.

The legal issues the court was required to address included whether the evidence relied upon by the prosecution as tendency evidence had significant probative value and whether other inferences drawn by the Crown were reasonably open based on the evidence presented. The court had to consider the relevance and potential prejudicial effect of the evidence in question.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence in question did possess significant probative value in relation to the charges. The court concluded that the inferences drawn by the Crown were reasonably open based on the evidence presented. The court emphasised the importance of evaluating the probative value of evidence against any potential prejudicial effect, and determined that in this case, the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution's case.

No further orders were made beyond the ruling on the admissibility and weight of the evidence. The case proceeded to trial with the contested evidence being admitted.

Orders