R v Stoten - [2010] QSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stoten [2010] QSC 137

PARTIES:

R
v
DANIEL ARAN STOTEN
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 13 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Application

COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 January 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 January 2010

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDER:

1.          The recording of telephone conversation between Glenn Luke Hargraves and Daniel Aran Stoten on 14 June 2005 is inadmissible.

2.          The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 15 June 2005 is inadmissible.

3.          The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 20 June 2005 is admissible.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – Evidence – Hearsay – Particular matters – Telephone calls – Level of connection with calls already tendered

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA

R v Rudd [2009] VSCA 213, considered

COUNSEL:

J Hunter SC for the applicant
A MacSporran SC with C Toweel for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

HIS HONOUR: I am asked to make rulings on the admissibility

into evidence of three taped telephone intercepts. The first

is of a conversation between two of the accused. The second

and third are of conversations between the accused Stoten and

his wife.

The intercepts are among a total of some 16,000 intercepts

made by police in the course of this investigation. Of those

intercepts, a smaller number, perhaps 20 or so, have been

tendered by the Crown. When they were tendered, they were

admitted without objection. Nobody has attempted on the

present application to undertake an analysis of their strict

admissibility or the basis of their admissibility. However,

it seems to me that, looking at the matter broadly, they are

generally admissible for the purpose for which the Crown

contends; that is, to show that the accused were aware that

their conduct was dishonest. There are four which are in a

different category, but they need not be addressed for the

purposes of the present argument.

That said, it is again not the subject of detailed submission

before me whether they are admitted as direct evidence of the

awareness or as admissions against interest and, therefore, an

exception to the hearsay rule. Without undertaking individual

analysis of them, my overall impression is that they are in

the former category. My impression is that they are not

tendered to prove the truth of what was said, but rather,

because the fact that various things were said they enable

inferences to be drawn about the state of mind and level of

awareness of the speaker. It may be said that these are

statements against interest but that does not mean that they

constitute hearsay.

So much for the ones that the Crown has tendered. The three

in question now are sort to be tendered on behalf of the

accused Stoten and there is no opposition from the other

accused.

The first is of a…

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 Stoten

Details

AGLC: R v Stoten [2010] QSC 137
Case: [2010] QSC 137
Decision Date: 28 January 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stoten dealt with the admissibility of various telephone call recordings in a criminal trial. The defendant, Daniel Aran Stoten, faced charges connected to an incident involving Glenn Luke Hargraves. The trial court was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain recordings of telephone conversations between the defendant and others, including his wife Katherine Stoten. The court's decision centred on the hearsay rule and whether the recordings were sufficiently connected to the matters at hand to be admissible under particular exceptions.

The legal issues before the court included whether the recordings were hearsay and, if so, whether they fell within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the recordings were sufficiently connected to the events in question to be admissible. The prosecution argued that the recordings were relevant and fell within an exception to the hearsay rule. In contrast, the defence contended that the recordings were not sufficiently connected to the events in question and should be excluded.

The court found that the recording of the telephone conversation between Glenn Luke Hargraves and Daniel Aran Stoten on 14 June 2005, as well as the recording of the conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 15 June 2005, were inadmissible. The court held that these recordings did not establish a sufficient connection to the events in question. However, the court ruled that the recording of the telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 20 June 2005 was admissible. The court found that this recording was sufficiently connected to the events in question to be admissible under the hearsay exception.

The court's final orders were that the recording of the telephone conversation between Glenn Luke Hargraves and Daniel Aran Stoten on 14 June 2005 was inadmissible, as was the recording of the telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 15 June 2005. However, the recording of the telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 20 June 2005 was deemed admissible. These orders played a significant role in the trial, as the admissibility of these recordings directly impacted the evidence available to both the prosecution and the defence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The recording of telephone conversation between Glenn Luke Hargraves and Daniel Aran Stoten on 14 June 2005 is inadmissible.

2. The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 15 June 2005 is inadmissible.

3. The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 20 June 2005 is admissible.

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.

CITATION:	R v Stoten [2010] QSC 137
PARTIES:	R v DANIEL ARAN STOTEN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 13 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Application
COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 January 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 January 2010
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDER:	1. The recording of telephone conversation between Glenn Luke Hargraves and Daniel Aran Stoten on 14 June 2005 is inadmissible. 2. The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 15 June 2005 is inadmissible. 3. The recording of telephone conversation between Katherine Stoten and Daniel Aran Stoten on 20 June 2005 is admissible.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law – Evidence – Hearsay – Particular matters – Telephone calls – Level of connection with calls already tendered Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA R v Rudd [2009] VSCA 213, considered
COUNSEL:	J Hunter SC for the applicant A MacSporran SC with C Toweel for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent