R v Seymour - [2012] QSC 14

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Seymour [2012] QSC 14

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)
v
BRETT ANDREW SEYMOUR
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

1070/10

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2011, 9 December 2011

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

1. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Seymour on 28 August 2009 be granted

2. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Terry on 9 September 2009 be granted

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - PREJUDICAL EVIDENCE- where applicant was charged with one count murder and one count interfering with a corpse- applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have one record of statement given to police by co-accused excluded from evidence at trial in the exercise of judicial discretion on the grounds that the statement of the co-accused was of slight probative value but was highly prejudicial- whether the evidence was of slight probative value

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED- applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have one record of statement given to police by each of the applicant and co-accused excluded from evidence at trial on the ground the statements were inadmissible pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation - whether statements given in course of questioning- whether failure to comply with Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation - whether co-accused had waived right to complain of admissibility

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS & ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – INDUCEMENT - applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have record of statement given to police by applicant excluded from evidence at trial on the ground of lack of voluntariness- whether inducement was made - whether inducement caused the statement to be made

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 436, 437, 439
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 (Qld), Schedule 10

Attorney-General (NSW) v Martin (1909) 9 CLR 713
Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615
R v Belford & Bound (No 2) [2009] QSC 428
R v Clark [2005] 13 VR 75
R v Demir [1990] 2 Qd R 433
R v Doyle; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 2 Qd R 732 R v Fairleigh (1910) 9 SR (NSW) 723
R v Hasler; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 1 Qd R 239
R v McCosker [2011] 2 Qd R 138

COUNSEL:

A Edwards for the applicant

G Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the

respondent

Mr Seymour is charged with the murder of Mr Bathgate (the…

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 Seymour

Details

AGLC: R v Seymour [2012] QSC 14
Case: [2012] QSC 14
Decision Date: 13 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Seymour involved the applicant, Mr Seymour, applying to the court to have certain statements excluded from evidence on the basis that they were not voluntary. The dispute centred on whether inducements made to Mr Seymour led to the making of the statements. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of the State.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statements made by Mr Seymour were voluntary and therefore admissible in evidence. The court had to determine whether there was any inducement that caused Mr Seymour to make the statements and, if so, whether that inducement rendered the statements involuntary. The court also had to consider whether the inducements, if any, had a significant impact on the voluntariness of the statements.

The court found that there were indeed inducements made to Mr Seymour, which played a significant role in his decision to make the statements. These inducements included promises of leniency and assurances regarding the treatment he would receive. The court held that these inducements were significant enough to impact the voluntariness of the statements. As a result, the court granted the application to exclude the statements from evidence. The same decision applied to the statements made by Mr Terry on 9 September 2009.

In conclusion, the court granted the application to exclude the statements made by both Mr Seymour on 28 August 2009 and Mr Terry on 9 September 2009 from evidence. The court's decision was based on the finding that the inducements made to Mr Seymour significantly affected the voluntariness of the statements, thereby rendering them inadmissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Seymour on 28 August 2009 be granted

2. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Terry on 9 September 2009 be granted

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 Seymour [2012] QSC 14
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent) v BRETT ANDREW SEYMOUR (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	1070/10
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 February 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 July 2011, 9 December 2011
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J
ORDER:	1. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Seymour on 28 August 2009 be granted 2. The application for the exclusion of statements made by Mr Terry on 9 September 2009 be granted
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - PREJUDICAL EVIDENCE- where applicant was charged with one count murder and one count interfering with a corpse- applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have one record of statement given to police by co-accused excluded from evidence at trial in the exercise of judicial discretion on the grounds that the statement of the co-accused was of slight probative value but was highly prejudicial- whether the evidence was of slight probative value CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED- applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have one record of statement given to police by each of the applicant and co-accused excluded from evidence at trial on the ground the statements were inadmissible pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation - whether statements given in course of questioning- whether failure to comply with Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation - whether co-accused had waived right to complain of admissibility CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS & ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS – INDUCEMENT - applicant applied pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to have record of statement given to police by applicant excluded from evidence at trial on the ground of lack of voluntariness- whether inducement was made - whether inducement caused the statement to be made Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 436, 437, 439 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 (Qld), Schedule 10 Attorney-General (NSW) v Martin (1909) 9 CLR 713 Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615 R v Belford & Bound (No 2) [2009] QSC 428 R v Clark [2005] 13 VR 75 R v Demir [1990] 2 Qd R 433 R v Doyle; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 2 Qd R 732 R v Fairleigh (1910) 9 SR (NSW) 723 R v Hasler; ex parte Attorney-General [1987] 1 Qd R 239 R v McCosker [2011] 2 Qd R 138
COUNSEL:	A Edwards for the applicant G Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent