R v Taber and Styman - [2005] NSWSC 936

Reported Decision:
157 A Crim R 174

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:
R v Taber & Styman [2005] NSWSC 936

HEARING DATE(S): 14 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

16 September 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF:
Studdert J

DECISION:
Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:
Plea in bar application - whether available - further question as to whether proceedings an abuse of process.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act, s 112

CASES CITED:
Pearce v TheQueen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Beedie (1997) 2 Cr.App.R 167
R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 615
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v O'Loughlin; ex parte Ralphs (1971) 1 SASR 219
R v Styman & Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245

PARTIES:
Regina v Peter Taber
Regina v Ian Craig Styman

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2002/120; 2002/118

COUNSEL:
A. Robertson (Crown)
G. Wendler (Taber)
G. Kumarasinhe (Styman)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (Crown)
Van Houten Solicitors (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

STUDDERT J

Friday 16 September 2005

2002/120 REGINA v PETER TABER
2002/118 REGINA v IAN CRAIG STYMAN
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, Ian Craig Styman and Peter David Taber, pleaded not guilty upon the presentation of an indictment charging them with the manslaughter of Joy Golbie Alchin between 5 January and 19 January 2001 at Greenwell Point. Each accused also raised a plea in bar by reason of having earlier been convicted of aggravated break and enter and commission of a serious indictable offence.

2 Before this Court, Mr Wendler, on behalf of the accused Peter Taber, submitted that there was available to his client a plea in bar and, in the alternative, sought an order that further proceedings upon the indictment be stayed permanently by reason of the current proceedings constituting an abuse of process.

3 Mr Kumarasinhe, who appears for the accused Ian Styman, supported the applications made by Mr Wendler.

4 It is necessary to refer to the background to these applications.

5 On 19 January 2001 the deceased, Joy Golbie Alchin, was found dead in her house at 23 Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point. The deceased was found lying face down on a mattress on the floor of her bedroom, with her wrists and ankles tied together. An undergarment had been used to form a wad against her mouth and a pillowcase had been placed over her head. There was tape wound around her mouth, lower jaw and neck. The time of death was not precisely determined, but the immediate cause of death was considered to be smothering and dehydration associated with restraint. In this summary, I have drawn upon the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Styman and Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245. To the judgment of that court I shall return shortly.

6 The accused stood trial before Barr J and jury jointly indicted on the following charges:

(i) that between 5th and 19th January 2001 they murdered the deceased;

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 Taber and Styman

Details

AGLC: R v Taber and Styman [2005] NSWSC 936
Case: [2005] NSWSC 936
Decision Date: 16 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Taber and Styman, the defendants sought to have their criminal proceedings stayed on the grounds that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The case was heard in the relevant court where the defendants argued that their prosecution should be halted due to alleged misconduct by the police and prosecutorial authorities. They claimed that the investigation and prosecution were initiated with improper motives and that the proceedings should not be allowed to continue.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' application to halt the proceedings constituted a valid plea in bar and, if so, whether the prosecution constituted an abuse of process. The court had to consider the applicable legal principles regarding pleas in bar and the circumstances under which a prosecution may be deemed an abuse of process. The court also needed to assess the evidence presented by the defendants regarding the alleged misconduct and whether it warranted a stay of proceedings.

The court found that the defendants' application to halt the proceedings did not constitute a valid plea in bar, as the defendants had not demonstrated a sufficient ground for the court to intervene. The court further examined the evidence of alleged misconduct but concluded that it did not establish that the prosecution was an abuse of process. The court held that the defendants had not shown that the prosecution was initiated with improper motives or that the proceedings should be stayed on the grounds of abuse of process. The court dismissed the application, allowing the proceedings to continue.

No orders were made by the court regarding any plea in bar or abuse of process claims.

Orders