R v Stone (Ruling No 2) - [2018] VSC 626

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0304

THE QUEEN
v
KATE KATHLEEN STONE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	15 and 17 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stone (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 626

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Incriminating Conduct – Post-offence conduct – Prosecution relies upon statements of accused as lies – Whether reasonably capable of being viewed as evidence of incriminating conduct – Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) ss 18, 19, 20.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Mahady	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Kilduff	Robert Davis Barrister & Solicitor

HER HONOUR:

Darren Anthony Reid died on 19 December 2016 some hours after he had been doused in fuel thinner and ignited. In this trial there is no issue that he was murdered. The only issue is whether the accused, his partner, was the murderer.

The prosecution case is that the accused doused the deceased in the flammable liquid on or around the rear porch of their house before setting fire to him. The prosecution case is largely circumstantial but also relies upon alleged admissions made by the accused to neighbours a few days after the incident in which she said words to the effect of ‘I did it. I killed him’. It is alleged that the accused also told her neighbours that she got the deceased drunk and, when he went to go to sleep on a mattress or bed, poured petrol on him and ‘lit him up’.

The prosecution will also lead evidence of a conversation the deceased had with a police officer in the ambulance immediately after the incident. In that conversation the deceased told the police officer that he was attacked by a man who was with two other males, and that they were the same three males that had attacked him and the accused a few weeks prior.

It is the prosecution case that this did not accurately represent events which led to the death of the deceased. It is the defence case that it did.

On 20 December 2016, the accused gave a written statement to police[1] in which she detailed an incident three weeks prior in which three men attended at her home and threatened her and the deceased with a knife. She said that one of those men told her his name was Jason Baxter and that she knew another as ‘Gibbo’. She did not know the name of the third man. She gave comprehensive physical descriptions of each of these three men.
[1]Which formalised information already provided.

In that statement the accused also said that on the night of the incident, she saw a sensor light flicker in the backyard and heard a voice she recognised as belonging to Jason Baxter making threats. She and the deceased went out the back…

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 Stone (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Stone (Ruling No 2) [2018] VSC 626
Case: [2018] VSC 626
Decision Date: 19 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Stone, the case involved the defendant being tried for a serious criminal offence. The crux of the dispute centred around the admissibility of certain post-offence conduct and statements made by the defendant, which the prosecution sought to use as evidence of guilt. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge Smith.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the defendant's post-offence conduct and statements were reasonably capable of being viewed as evidence of incriminating conduct, and whether the jury directions provided by the court under the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) were adequate to ensure a fair trial. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the prosecution's reliance on the defendant's statements as lies was appropriate, and if the jury was properly directed to consider these statements in the context of the overall evidence.

In delivering the decision, the court examined the nature of the defendant's conduct and statements, and whether they could be reasonably interpreted as evidence of guilt. The court considered the provisions of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) and whether the jury was adequately informed of the importance of evaluating all evidence in determining the defendant's guilt. The court concluded that the jury directions were sufficient, and the post-offence conduct and statements were reasonably capable of being viewed as evidence of incriminating conduct. The court found that the prosecution's reliance on the defendant's statements as lies was appropriate, and the jury was properly directed to consider these statements in the context of the overall evidence.

As a result of the court's findings, the case proceeded to the jury, who were required to consider the post-offence conduct and statements in conjunction with the other evidence presented. The final orders of the court were not detailed in the text provided, but would typically include directions for the trial to continue, or potentially a decision on the admissibility of certain evidence if the jury had already been empanelled.

Orders