R v Stone (Ruling No 3) - [2018] VSC 628

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
DATE OF HEARING:	16 October 2018
DATE OF RULING:	19 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Stone (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 628

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Record of Interview – Whether breach of s 464A(2)(b) Crimes Act 1958 to ‘inform the person of the circumstances of that offence’ – R v Lancaster [1998] 4 VR 550 applied.

---

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:

The accused faces a single charge of murder.

The accused denies any involvement in the incident that led to the death of her partner Darren Anthony Reid on 19 December 2016. Indeed, in a formal police statement given to police on 20 December 2016, the accused said that she witnessed another man – an intruder in company with two others – douse the deceased with flammable liquid and set fire to him, resulting in his death.

On 4 January 2017, the accused was arrested and thereafter participated in a record of interview with police at the Victoria Police Centre in Docklands.

The accused challenges the admissibility of the record of interview. The accused argues that the interview was conducted in breach of s 464A(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) in that she was not informed prior to questioning of the circumstances of the offence she was suspected of having committed. As a consequence, the accused argues that the record of interview should be excluded in an exercise of the discretion under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). Relevant to that exercise, the accused relies upon the use of the PEACE method of questioning[1] and the need for courts to closely scrutinise that particular interrogation technique. In that regard, the accused places particular reliance upon the observations of the Court of Appeal in Willis v The Queen.[2]
[1]At committal the informant accepted that the structure of the Record of Interview had a format similar to the PEACE methodology.
[2][2016] VSCA 176, [202] (Weinberg and Beach JJA), [211], [237] (Priest JA) (‘Willis’).

The prosecution submits that there has been no breach of s 464A(2)(a) of the Crimes Act. The accused was informed at all times that she was under arrest and was being interviewed in relation to the death of Darren Reid.

The Record of Interview

It is convenient to set out the following extracts of the transcript of the Record of Interview.

Q6So as I explained to you a little earlier today, my name’s Mick Cashman. I’m from the homicide squad and here today, because I want to interview you in relation to the death of Darren Reid, who was your partner.
Yes

Q7 Darren died on 19 December,…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Stone (Ruling No 3) [2018] VSC 628
Case: [2018] VSC 628
Decision Date: 19 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stone (Ruling No 3), the respondent, Stone, was charged with a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 1958. The issue at hand was whether there was a breach of section 464A(2)(b) of the Act, which requires the police to inform the person of the circumstances of the offence during a record of interview. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The court needed to determine if the police had adequately informed Stone of the circumstances of the offence during the record of interview. The respondent contended that the police failed to adequately inform him of the offence, which resulted in a breach of the statutory requirements. The prosecution argued that the information provided was sufficient and in line with the statutory obligations.

The court found that the police did not adequately inform Stone of the circumstances of the offence, as required by section 464A(2)(b) of the Act. The court relied on the decision in R v Lancaster [1998] 4 VR 550 to conclude that the police must inform the person of the offence in a manner that is clear and precise, allowing the person to understand the nature of the offence. In this case, the court found that the information provided to Stone was not clear and precise enough to satisfy the statutory requirements.

As a result, the court found that there was a breach of section 464A(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958. The court ordered that the record of interview be excluded from evidence in any subsequent criminal proceeding against the respondent.

Orders