R and Stokes [2000] NTSC 12
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
and
TREVOR JOHN STOKES
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:SCC9919706
DELIVERED: 16 March 2000
HEARING DATES: 8 March 2000
JUDGMENT OF: MILDREN J
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:Rex Wild, QC with J Martin
Defendant:Jon Tippett
Solicitors:
Crown:Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:Dalrymple and Associates
Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages: 20
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWINR and Stokes [2000] NTSC 12
No. SCC9919706
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Crown
AND:
TREVOR JOHN STOKES
Defendant
CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 16 March 2000)
Mildren J:
This is an application pursuant to s26L of the Evidence Act to determine the admissibility of certain DNA evidence which the Crown wishes to lead at the trial of the accused for murder.
Factual Background
For the purposes of this ruling, I am asked to assume that the Crown will call evidence at the trial to the following effect:
(1)The deceased victim, Greg Bebensee, (Bebensee) arrived in Darwin from Karratha, Western Australia, in early May 1999. He had travelled to Darwin in the company of a young woman but they obtained separate accommodation once they reached Darwin. Bebensee became employed.
(2)The accused (Stokes) and his friend Lee McLaughlin (McLaughlin) had come to Australia from Asia at the beginning of May, landing in Darwin. They were both graduates of an English university, although nationals of Northern Ireland. They had known each other at university and again had flatted together in Singapore where they both worked as civil engineers. After some year or so in Singapore working they travelled for a month or so in Asia, before arriving in Australia. Having been in Darwin for a short time, they purchased a motor vehicle, travelled to northern Australia and camped and worked in the Kununurra district before returning to Darwin at the end of May 1999.
(3)Bebensee arranged to meet friends on the evening of Saturday 5 June 1999. He used his Eftpos card at about 9.25 p.m. that evening at the Central Supermarket, Smith Street (a receipt was in his wallet) and then met two friends near the Top End Hotel. They spent an hour or two at Squires and then arrived at the Victoria Hotel shortly prior to midnight. Bebensee left in the early hours of Sunday 6 June 1999. The video at the Victoria Hotel shows him leaving the upstairs part of the premises at 2.09 a.m. and he had probably left the vicinity of the hotel shortly after 2.17 a.m. At 3.30 a.m. he was seen lying at the end of Packard Place, Larrakeyah, where he was later found at 6.00 a.m. to be deceased.
(4)The deceased was found lying on his left side. He had apparently been attacked with an instrument, such as a half axe camping tool, which had caused his death. The deceased was wearing inter alia jeans…
Continue reading R v Stokes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Stokes [2000] NTSC 12
- Case
- [2000] NTSC 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the DNA evidence, which was obtained from a sample taken from the deceased's clothing, could be admitted as evidence under the relevant section of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the evidence was relevant to the proceedings, and if so, whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. The court also had to consider whether the evidence met the criteria for admissibility under s26L, including the relevance of the evidence to the issue of whether the accused had a sexual connection with the deceased.
The court found that the DNA evidence was indeed relevant to the proceedings and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. The court determined that the evidence of a sexual connection between the accused and the deceased was relevant to the issue of identity and motive in the murder case. The court also found that the evidence met the criteria for admissibility under s26L, as it was necessary to explain or make sense of other evidence in the case. The court concluded that the DNA evidence was admissible, as it was relevant to the issue of whether the accused had a sexual connection with the deceased, which was a matter of significance in the case.
The court ordered that the DNA evidence be admitted as evidence in the trial of the accused for murder. This decision was based on the court's finding that the evidence was relevant to the proceedings, had probative value, and met the criteria for admissibility under s26L of the Evidence Act. The court's ruling allows the Crown to present the DNA evidence at the trial, which may assist in establishing the accused's identity as the perpetrator of the crime.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.