R v Stott - [2019] ACTSC 272

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stott
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 272
Hearing Date:	12 September 2019
DecisionDate:	9 October 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [40]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – where tendency incidents involve co-accused’s involvement in related proceedings – where tendencies alleged are unusual or specific – whether tendency incident the subject of the conduct charged in the trial can be led – it cannot
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 97, 101, 101(2), 135, 137
Cases Cited:	DPP (ACT) v DL [2018] ACTCA 61; 14 ACTLR 62 DPP v Hills & Ors (No 6) [2010] VSC 486 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297 R v Bauer (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 40; 92 ALJR 846 R v Chase [2018] NSWCCA 71
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Sharon Stott (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel R Khazma (Crown) S Whybrow (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 90 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The accused, Sharon Stott, faces four counts on an indictment dated 23 July 2019. Each offence relates to a complainant who I will refer to as DT. Count 1 is that the accused and her co-accused, David Evans, unlawfully confined DT. Count 2 is that the accused and Mr Evans, intentionally inflicted actual bodily harm on him. Count 3 is that the accused and Mr Evans made a demand of DT with a threat to endanger his health, safety or physical well-being. Count 4 is that the accused attempted to detain DT with the intent of holding him for advantage.

The Crown case is that on 18 January 2019 the accused and the co-accused attended an address in Kambah. DT also arrived to visit the resident of those premises. The accused and Mr Evans are alleged to have followed DT into the house and detained him over a period of approximately one hour, demanding a payment of $20,000 from him. Mr Evans was armed with a baseball bat which he raised several times causing the complainant to believe that he was about to be struck. The accused eventually told DT to stand up. Mr Evans is then alleged to have struck DT with a baseball bat multiple times upon various parts of his body including his head before DT was able to arm himself with a knife and chase the accused and Mr Evans out the front of the residence.

The accused has elected for a trial by judge alone. The co-accused, Mr Evans, has also filed an election for trial by judge alone. The matter is listed for hearing by a judge sitting alone commencing on 18 November 2019.

The tendency application

The Crown has given notice that it intends to adduce tendency evidence. It has also filed an Application in Proceedings dated 20 August 2019 seeking a pre-trial ruling upon the…

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 Stott

Details

AGLC: R v Stott [2019] ACTSC 272
Case: [2019] ACTSC 272
Decision Date: 9 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stott involved the respondent, who stood accused of sexual offences against a minor. The trial judge faced a challenge regarding the admissibility of certain evidence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate legal principles governing the admissibility of tendency evidence in such a context. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether it was permissible to introduce evidence of the respondent's past conduct if that conduct involved a co-accused who was the subject of related but separate proceedings.

The central legal issue was whether tendency evidence, which involved the co-accused's actions in related proceedings, could be admitted when the tendencies alleged were unusual or specific. The court had to consider the principles established in previous case law, such as the decision in R v Filshie, and how these principles applied when the co-accused's conduct was the subject of different legal proceedings. The court needed to ensure that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

The court held that the trial judge had applied the correct principles in excluding the evidence. The court reasoned that while tendency evidence can be valuable, it must not be led if it pertains to conduct that is the subject of the current charges. The court emphasised that the evidence must be relevant to the issues in the trial and not merely serve to prejudice the respondent. The High Court found that the trial judge's exclusion of the evidence was justified and did not constitute an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [40]

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.