R v Sharpe (No 1) - [2020] NSWSC 1794

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sharpe (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1794
Hearing dates: 10 December 2020
Date of orders: 10 December 2020
Decision date: 10 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
The evidence is excluded.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Where accused pleaded not guilty to murder – No issue that the accused stabbed the deceased – No issue that the deceased died from the stabbing – Where sole issue was whether the accused acted in defence of his father – Where Crown sought to lead evidence of observations of the accused in the hours prior to the murder holding a knife and a rifle – Whether that evidence was relevant – Whether the actions of the accused in those respects constituted a part of a series of connected events including the deceased’s murder – Whether the actions of the accused were relevant on the basis that they were evidence of his state of mind – Application of so-called “O’Leary principle” – Evidence not relevant – Evidence excluded

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510; [1999] NSWCCA 189
O’Leary v R (1946) 73 CLR 566; [1946] HCA 44
R v Serratore [2001] NSWCCA 123

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Daniel James Sharpe – Accused
Regina – Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
M Fox – Crown
T D Anderson – Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Crown
Jennifer Chalker Lawyer – Accused

File Number(s): 2019/215856
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

INTRODUCTION

Daniel Sharpe (the accused) has pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging that on 13 April 2019, at Surfside in the State of NSW, he murdered Andrew Peter Drake (the deceased). The accused’s trial is fixed to commence before the Court sitting in Queanbeyan on 1 February 2021.
Counsel for the accused has taken objection to a discrete part of the evidence upon which the Crown seeks to rely. This judgment deals with the resolution of that issue.

THE CROWN CASE

On the afternoon of Saturday 13 April 2019, the accused and his father, David Sharpe, were drinking and listening to music at their home in Surfside. The deceased, and his sister Penny Drake, were at their parents' house which bordered part of the premises occupied by the accused and his father.
The deceased and his sister were having dinner, during which they could hear music playing at the accused’s residence. At about 11pm they went over there to socialise.
It is alleged that during that evening the deceased was stabbed to death by the accused.

THE ISSUE IN THE TRIAL

There is no dispute that stab wounds were inflicted by the accused, nor is there any dispute that those stab wounds caused the deceased’s death. The principal, if not sole, issue in the trial is whether, in acting as he did, the accused was acting in defence of another person, namely his father.

THE EVIDENCE

The evidence which…

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 Sharpe (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Sharpe (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 1794
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1794
Decision Date: 10 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sharpe, the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The prosecution argued that the respondent had stabbed the deceased, and that the deceased died as a result of the stabbing. The only issue in dispute was whether the respondent acted in self-defence of his father. The Crown sought to introduce evidence of observations of the respondent holding a knife and a rifle in the hours leading up to the incident. This evidence was intended to demonstrate that the respondent had the means and intent to commit the crime.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed evidence was relevant and admissible. The Crown argued that the evidence was relevant because it demonstrated the respondent's state of mind and formed part of a series of connected events, including the murder. The respondent argued that the evidence was not relevant because it did not relate to the issue of self-defence. The court had to determine whether the evidence of the respondent's actions was relevant to the issue of self-defence and whether it could be admitted under the principles of relevance and admissibility.

The court held that the evidence was not relevant to the issue of self-defence and was therefore inadmissible. The court found that the evidence did not relate to the respondent's state of mind at the time of the incident and did not form part of a series of connected events that included the murder. The court applied the O'Leary principle, which states that evidence of a person's character or previous conduct is not admissible to prove that they acted in a particular way on a specific occasion, unless it is relevant to an issue in the case. The court found that the evidence did not meet this criterion and was therefore excluded. The court's decision was based on the principles of relevance and admissibility, and the need to ensure that evidence is only admitted if it is necessary and probative of an issue in the case.

The final order of the court was that the evidence of the respondent's actions in the hours leading up to the incident was excluded from the trial. The court found that the evidence was not relevant to the issue of self-defence and did not meet the criteria for admissibility. The court's decision was based on the principles of relevance and admissibility, and the need to ensure that evidence is only admitted if it is necessary and probative of an issue in the case. The trial proceeded without the excluded evidence, and the respondent was ultimately acquitted of the charge of murder.

Orders