R v Sanchez - [2017] QSC 143

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sanchez [2017] QSC 143

PARTIES:

The Queen
v
SANCHEZ, Nathan Alec Simmons

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 1066 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 April 2017; 7 June 2017

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

Ruling pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) that the Crown may lead evidence of the field interview of Emma Jane Elizabeth Shawyer conducted by Senior Constable Helmut Krause between 4.50 pm and 5.10 pm on 16 September 2014 save for the portions of that interview highlighted on Exhibit 16, being a transcript of the interview received in evidence on the hearing of this application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – MAKER OF STATEMENT NOT AVAILABLE – where the accused was charged on indictment with one count of murder and, in the alternative, one count of unlawful striking causing death – where a witness to the incident giving rise to the alleged offences was interviewed by police in the field shortly after the incident – where the witness also gave a written statement to police later that evening – where the witness asserted in the field interview that the accused started the fight by striking the first blow – where the witness subsequently died – where the Crown seeks to lead the field interview of the witness in evidence – where the defence objected to the parts of the field interview containing representations as to who started the fight – whether the representations are admissible pursuant to s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether it is inexpedient in the interests of justice that the representations be admitted in evidence at the trial – whether the court should exercise its discretion to exclude the representations pursuant to s 98 of the Evidence Act

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B, s93B(1), s 93B(2), s 93B(5), s 98

R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386, followed
R v Knight & Ors[2010] QCA 372, cited
R v Lester[2008] QCA 354, cited
R v McGrane[2002] QCA 173, cited
Sio v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 963; [2016] HCA 32, followed

Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, cited

COUNSEL:

R A East for the applicant

D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Nathan Sanchez is charged on indictment with one count of murder and, in the alternative, one count of unlawful striking causing death.
At the time of the incident giving rise to these alleged offences, the deceased (Kane Barry) together with his partner (Emma Shawyer) resided in a unit complex located in Southport. Mr Sanchez also…

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 Sanchez

Details

AGLC: R v Sanchez [2017] QSC 143
Case: [2017] QSC 143
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Sanchez came before the court. The defendant, Sanchez, was charged with murder and, in the alternative, unlawful striking causing death. A witness, Emma Jane Elizabeth Shawyer, had been interviewed by police shortly after the incident and later provided a written statement. Tragically, the witness died before the trial, prompting the Crown to seek admission of the field interview into evidence. The defence objected to certain parts of the interview, specifically the witness's account of who initiated the conflict.

The central legal issue was whether the portions of the field interview concerning the witness's account of who started the fight could be admitted under section 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Additionally, the court had to consider whether admitting these representations would be inexpedient in the interests of justice and whether the court should exercise its discretion to exclude them under section 98 of the same Act. The court's decision hinged on balancing the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice to the defendant.

The court ruled that the field interview of Emma Jane Elizabeth Shawyer conducted by Senior Constable Helmut Krause on 16 September 2014 could be admitted, with the exception of specific portions highlighted on Exhibit 16. The court found that while the witness's account was probative, the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed the probative value concerning the specific details of who initiated the conflict. This ruling aligns with the legislative intent to prevent unfair prejudice while still allowing for the introduction of relevant evidence when the declarant is unavailable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ruling pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) that the Crown may lead evidence of the field interview of Emma Jane Elizabeth Shawyer conducted by Senior Constable Helmut Krause between 4.50 pm and 5.10 pm on 16 September 2014 save for the portions of that interview highlighted on Exhibit 16, being a transcript of the interview received in evidence on the hearing of this application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Sanchez [2017] QSC 143
PARTIES:	The Queen v SANCHEZ, Nathan Alec Simmons
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 1066 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 April 2017; 7 June 2017
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	Ruling pursuant to s 590AA of the *Criminal Code* 1899 (Qld) that the Crown may lead evidence of the field interview of Emma Jane Elizabeth Shawyer conducted by Senior Constable Helmut Krause between 4.50 pm and 5.10 pm on 16 September 2014 save for the portions of that interview highlighted on Exhibit 16, being a transcript of the interview received in evidence on the hearing of this application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – PARTICULAR MATTERS – MAKER OF STATEMENT NOT AVAILABLE – where the accused was charged on indictment with one count of murder and, in the alternative, one count of unlawful striking causing death – where a witness to the incident giving rise to the alleged offences was interviewed by police in the field shortly after the incident – where the witness also gave a written statement to police later that evening – where the witness asserted in the field interview that the accused started the fight by striking the first blow – where the witness subsequently died – where the Crown seeks to lead the field interview of the witness in evidence – where the defence objected to the parts of the field interview containing representations as to who started the fight – whether the representations are admissible pursuant to s 93B of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether it is inexpedient in the interests of justice that the representations be admitted in evidence at the trial – whether the court should exercise its discretion to exclude the representations pursuant to s 98 of the Evidence Act Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B, s93B(1), s 93B(2), s 93B(5), s 98 R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386, followed R v Knight & Ors[2010] QCA 372, cited R v Lester[2008] QCA 354, cited R v McGrane[2002] QCA 173, cited Sio v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 963; [2016] HCA 32, followed Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283; [1989] HCA 9, cited
COUNSEL:	R A East for the applicant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent