Legal Research
Cases
R v Steven Wayne Hillier

R v Steven Wayne Hillier

Case [2010] ACTSC 33 16 April 2010

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Burden of Proof

Reasonable Doubt

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

R v STEVEN WAYNE HILLIER
[2010] ACTSC 33 (16 April 2010)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – murder – circumstantial case – evidence of motive, opportunity and consciousness of guilt and DNA evidence – reasonable possibility of contamination of DNA evidence – consciousness of guilt evidence not proved beyond reasonable doubt – verdict of acquittal entered.

EVIDENCE – burden of proof in relation to DNA evidence and consciousness of guilt evidence – proof beyond reasonable doubt required because of importance of evidence to Crown case.

EVIDENCE – waiver of rules of evidence under s 190 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – tender of transcript of first trial.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 12
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 38, 135, 137, 190, 192
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B

Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 referred to
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 cited
Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 referred to
De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwin Nair (2009) 170 ACTR 15 referred to
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 cited
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 discussed
Hillier v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 48 cited
Hillier v R (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 discussed
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 referred to
Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 cited
Penney v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 discussed
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 discussed
R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510 referred to
R v Betancur-Galvis (2003) 142 A Crim R 527 cited
R v Butler [2009] QCA 111 cited
R v Farquharson [2009] VSCA 307 cited
R v Fletcher (1998) 2 Qd R 437 cited
R v Laz [1998] 1 VR 453 cited
R v Pantoja (1996) 88 A Crim R 554 cited
R v Stafford [2009] QCA 407 cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 referred to

The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 discussed
Velevski v R (2002) 187 ALR 233 referred to
Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529 discussed

Byrne D and Heydon JD, Cross on Evidence, (Butterworths, Australian ed, subscription service) at [9040]

No. SCC 37 of 2004

Judge: Besanko J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 April 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 37 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN WAYNE HILLIER

ORDER

Judge:  Besanko J
Date:  16 April 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

On the charge on indictment that Steven Wayne Hillier murdered Ana Louise Hardwick between 30 September 2002 and 2 October 2002 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory there be a verdict of acquittal.

Introduction

Steven Wayne Hillier is charged on indictment with the murder of Ana Louise Hardwick between 30 September 2002 and 2 October 2002 at Canberra in the Australian…

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 Steven Wayne Hillier

Details

AGLC: R v Steven Wayne Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33
Case: [2010] ACTSC 33
Decision Date: 16 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Steven Wayne Hillier, the defendant was charged with the murder of a woman, the circumstances of which were under consideration by the court. The case was heard by a judge alone, without a jury, in an Australian court. The primary issue before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime, considering both the circumstantial evidence presented and the DNA evidence. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the evidence of motive, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt could substantiate the prosecution's case.

The court examined the prosecution's argument that the defendant's DNA matched that found at the crime scene, but acknowledged the potential for contamination and thus considered it insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also scrutinised the evidence of motive, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt, concluding that these elements did not sufficiently corroborate the DNA evidence. The court held that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof, which required evidence to be established beyond reasonable doubt due to its critical role in the case. The court found that the evidence of consciousness of guilt, in particular, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, impacting the overall strength of the prosecution's case.

Following the court's deliberations, it was determined that the prosecution had failed to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judge acquitted the defendant, entering a verdict of acquittal. The final orders of the court were that Steven Wayne Hillier was to be found not guilty of the charge of murder, and a verdict of acquittal was to be recorded.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the accused not guilty. A verdict of acquittal must be entered.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Steven Wayne Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33

Most Recent Citation

R v Craig Paul Meyboom [2011] ACTSC 13

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v John George Borg, Douglas John Frederick Carroll, Wayne Frederick Fear No.2
[2015] NSWDC 116 Para 23

…ng alone and as the trier of fact he had doubts about the DNA evidence as there may have been the contamination in a police exhibit room: R v Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33.…
R v Craig Paul Meyboom
[2011] ACTSC 13 Para 1

…See, for example, Forbes v R [2009] ACTCA 10 (19 June 2009) compared with R v Hillier [2010] ACTSC 33 (16 April 2010).…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

R v Stafford
[2009] QCA 407 Para 1

…or is such a doubt raised simply because items were liable to contamination: R v Butler [2009] QCA 111 at [107], [109] per Keane JA; R v Stafford [2009] QCA 407 at [126] per Keane JA.…
R v Farquharson
[2009] VSCA 307 Para 1

…circumstances of the case and the importance of the consciousness of guilt evidence in those circumstances: R v Laz [1998] 1 VR 453; R v Farquharson [2009] VSCA 307.…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwin Nair
[2009] ACTCA 17 Para 1

…aching my conclusion, I had regard to the decision of the High Court in Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwin Nair (2009) 170 ACTR 15 and the authorities referred to in that case.…
R v Butler
[2009] QCA 111 Para 1

…ures does not of itself give rise to a reasonable doubt, nor is such a doubt raised simply because items were liable to contamination: R v Butler [2009] QCA 111 at [107], [109] per Keane JA; R v Stafford [2009] QCA 407 at [126] per Keane JA.…
Hillier v The Queen
[2005] ACTCA 48 Para 1

…reme Court. By a majority (Higgins CJ, Crispin P; Spender J dissenting) his appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside ( Hillier v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 48). The ground on which the Court allowed the appeal was that the verdict of the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court of Appeal did not make a…
Dyers v The Queen
[2002] HCA 45 Para 1

…I should give myself a Jones v Dunkel direction for two reasons. First, as a general rule, such a direction should not be given: Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 at 291 [6] per Gaudron and Hayne JJ. Secondly, at no stage did counsel for the accused identify those factual matters with respect to which he asked me…
De Gruchy v The Queen
[2002] HCA 33 Para 1

…mply one item of evidence in the case that may tend to show that the accused murdered the deceased ( Plomp at 242 per Dixon CJ; De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 at 99-102 [55]-[57] per Kirby J).…
Velevski v The Queen
[2002] HCA 4 Para 1

…indispensable link in a chain of evidence necessary to prove guilt (see also R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510 at 521-522 [55] and [60]; Velevski v R (2002) 187 ALR 233 at 244-245 [42]-[44] per Gleeson CJ and Hayne J). The cases since Edwards suggest that whether consciousness of guilt evidence must be proved beyond…
Adam v The Queen
[2001] HCA 57 Para 1

…r premises, the means by which the killer gained access to the premises. In reaching my conclusion, I had regard to the decision of the High Court in Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwin Nair (2009) 170 ACTR 15 and the authorities referred to…
Melbourne v The Queen
[1999] HCA 32 Para 1

…s evidence, I am entitled to use it as probative of the accused’s propensity to commit the crime or his credibility, or both: Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 at 14 per McHugh J. I have taken the evidence into account but, for reasons I will give, it has not been sufficient to dissuade me from the conclusion…
Penney v The Queen
[1998] HCA 51

…5] ACTCA 48 cited Hillier v R (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 discussed Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 referred to Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 cited Penney v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 discussed Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 discussed R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510 referred to R v Betancur-Galvis (2003) 142 A C…
Edwards v The Queen
[1993] HCA 63 Para 1

…order to avoid a sample of his fingerprints being taken. The Director submits that I should give myself an Edwards direction ( Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 (“ Edwards ”)) in relation to that contention. Secondly, the accused lied about how he damaged his hands and he did that out of a consciousness of guil…
Shepherd v The Queen
[1990] HCA 56 Para 1

…an intermediate fact or an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning towards an inference of guilt in the sense described in Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573. The Director submits that the intermediate fact in this case is the accused’s presence at the scene of the crime.…
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2)
[1984] HCA 7 Para 1

…n (1998) 72 ALJR 1316, the High Court seemed to proceed on the basis that, in accordance with the principles stated in Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 (“ Chamberlain No 2” ), motive had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although motive may not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in every c…
Barca v the Queen
[1975] HCA 42

…Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 referred to Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 cited Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 referred to De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85 cited Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwin Nair (2009) 170 ACTR 15 referred to Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 cited E…
Woon v The Queen
[1964] HCA 23 Para 1

…e Director submits that the accused’s explanations might be seen to fall within the type of evidence described by Kitto J in Woon v The Queen (1964) 109 CLR 529 at 537-538:…
Plomp v The Queen
[1963] HCA 44 Para 1

…features of a circumstantial case and the approach which I, as the finder of fact, must adopt are clearly summarised in two cases: Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 (“ Plomp ”) and the decision of the High Court in Hillier .…
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 9

…210 CLR 285 cited Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 discussed Hillier v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 48 cited Hillier v R (2008) 1 ACTLR 235 discussed Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 referred to Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1 cited Penney v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1316 discussed Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CL…
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8 Para 1

…s Moira Johnson) and officers who had access to search room 1. Counsel for the accused asked me to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference ( Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298). It was not suggested by the Director that Ms Moira Johnson was not available to give evidence. The 9-12 people who, on the evidence of Mr Williams, m…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
135, 137, 190, 192, 38 6 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
12 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT)
1 mention