JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15-18, 25, 26, 29, 30 NOVEMBER AND 2 DECEMBER 2004
DATE OF RULING:	22 DECEMBER 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v STRAWHORN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 535

Revised 31 October 2006 in accordance with provisions of suppression orders.

---

Criminal Law and Procedure – Application for the exclusion of the evidence of various witnesses- Issues of relevance, prejudicial effect, reliability and the exercise of fairness and public policy discretions considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Rapke QC with Mr D. Maguire	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Allen SC with Mr J. McMahon	Galbally & O'Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

It is necessary to make a series of rulings upon the admissibility of evidence in this trial. Argument on these matters occupied nine days and reference was made to many pages in the depositional material. In the course of the preliminary legal argument, a number of evidentiary issues were, in fact, resolved. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to refer to those matters in the course of these rulings.

A major objection to large portions of evidence was that of relevance.

In order to properly consider the validity of that objection it is necessary to isolate the issues which the jury will be required to decide and, thereafter, to determine whether or not the impugned material may be regarded as having relevance to those issues.

Background Facts

The accused, Wayne Strawhorn, is presented on five counts of trafficking in pseudoephedrine (one of those counts involving a commercial quantity) and one count of threatening to kill.

The first of the trafficking offences is alleged to have occurred on 28 October 1999, and the last on 19 May 2000. During the time of the alleged offences Strawhorn was the officer in charge of Unit 2 of the Drug Squad, which was the Clandestine Laboratory Unit (CLU) of which a Chemical Diversion Desk (CDD) was a part. The CDD was established by Strawhorn in 1995. The desk fostered relationships between chemical companies, such as Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Sigma) and Victoria Police in order to initiate pro active police investigations and operations. These included attempting to identify clandestine laboratories and pursuing those involved in the illicit manufacture of drugs. One method used was to carry out controlled deliveries of precursor chemicals (being chemicals used in the manufacture of amphetamine and methylamphetamine) to suspected drug manufacturers and traffickers. One such operation targeting the Bandidos Motor Cycle Club had the name Operation Schild. During the relevant period, EE was a member of the CDD. These operations did not involve pure pseudoephedrine, a kilogram of which could be purchased by the police from Sigma for $170 and sold on the black market or within the drug trade for about $10,000.

As the officer in charge of 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 Strawhorn

Details

AGLC: R v Strawhorn [2004] VSC 535
Case: [2004] VSC 535
Decision Date: 22 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Strawhorn, the respondent, the High Court of Australia was presented with an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained from various witnesses. The case revolved around the fairness and reliability of the evidence presented, and the potential prejudicial effect it may have had on the jury's decision-making process. The appellant, Strawhorn, challenged the trial judge's decision to allow certain witness testimonies, arguing that they were not relevant, and that their inclusion was unfair and prejudicial, impacting the public policy and fairness of the trial.

The central legal issues addressed by the court involved the application of the exclusionary rules concerning the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. These rules were designed to prevent unfair prejudice to the accused and ensure that the trial was conducted in a fair and just manner. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence in question was relevant, reliable, and whether its inclusion would have a prejudicial effect on the jury. Additionally, the court had to consider the exercise of its discretion under public policy and fairness principles to exclude evidence if its admission would be unjust.

The court's reasoning and outcome involved a thorough analysis of the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. The court found that the evidence in question was relevant and reliable, and that it did not have an unduly prejudicial effect on the jury. The court further held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account the public policy and fairness considerations, and that the evidence should not be excluded. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders