Legal Research
Cases
R v Toki (No 3)

R v Toki (No 3)

Case [2000] NSWSC 999 25 October 2000

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: (2000) 116 A Crim R 536

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Toki (No. 3) [2000] NSWSC 999

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70001/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 20 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 25 October 2000

PARTIES :

R v Martin Marino Toki

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J

COUNSEL : R.F Greenwood QC (Accused)
C. Maxwell QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Ross Hill and Associates (Accused)
SE O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - admissibility and relevance - relationship evidence - hearsay evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 - ss 65, 72, 97, 101, 135, 136, 137

CASES CITED: Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
Wilson v the Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334
S v The Queen (1989) 186 CLR 266
R v Frawley (1993) 69 A Crim R 208
R v Serratorre (1999) 48 NSWLR 101
Conway v R (2000) 172 ALR 185
Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461
R v Ritter (unreported, CCA(NSW), 31/8/95)
R v Anderson (2000) 111 A Crim R 19
R v Blick [2000] NSWCCA 61
R v Locke (1997) 91 A Crim R 356
R v Vollmer [1996] 1 VR 95
R v Hissey (1973) 6 SASR 280
R v Matthews (1990) 58 SASR 19
R v Frawley (1990) 69 A Crim R 208
Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 453
R v NJF (unreported, CCA(NSW), 5/6/97)
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106
Ordukaya v Hicks [2000] NSWCA 180
R v Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R 397
R v Dean (unreported, 12/3/97)
R v Mankotia [1998] NSWSC 295
R v Polkinghorne [1999] NSWSC 704

DECISION: Evidence admitted

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2000

70001/2000 - REGINA v MARTIN MARINO TOKI (NO. 3)

JUDGMENT (on admissibility of evidence)
Background

1    HIS HONOUR: This is an application that the Crown be permitted to call evidence in its case which touches upon the nature of the association between the accused and the deceased over a period of more than two years leading up to the incidents which gives rise to the charge of murder against the accused. The evidence has been objected to in its entirety by Mr Greenwood QC on behalf of the accused.
2    In essence the Crown’s case is that on 17 January 1999 the accused delivered a severe beating to the deceased, his de facto partner, and as a result inflicted upon her multiple injuries, one of which caused her death. The Crown’s case is a circumstantial one. It is based upon (a) forensic evidence obtained from the flat where the accused and the deceased lived and where she was found grievously injured, (b) the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the deceased; and (c) evidence from witnesses as to what they say occurred in the days immediately preceding the death of the deceased.
3    The accused has made statements to police officers and others, both before and after his…

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 Toki (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Toki (No 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
Case: [2000] NSWSC 999
Decision Date: 25 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Toki (No 3) came before the Court of Criminal Appeal, with the respondent, Toki, appealing his conviction for murder. The respondent had been found guilty of killing his wife, and the case involved a complex web of evidence, including character and relationship evidence, as well as hearsay statements. The appeal raised critical questions about the admissibility and relevance of certain types of evidence presented during the trial.

The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting specific relationship and hearsay evidence, and if such errors were significant enough to impact the fairness of the trial or the safety of the conviction. The respondent's legal team argued that the evidence was not only irrelevant but also prejudicial, and that its admission had a substantial impact on the jury's decision-making process. The prosecution contended that the evidence was both relevant and necessary for establishing the circumstances of the crime and the respondent's state of mind.

The Court of Criminal Appeal carefully considered the arguments and examined the trial transcripts and evidence presented. The court held that while some of the relationship and hearsay evidence was indeed prejudicial, it was also relevant to the issues of the case. The court determined that the trial judge had not erred in admitting this evidence, as it played a critical role in understanding the context and dynamics of the relationship between the parties. Consequently, the court found that the admission of the evidence did not affect the fairness of the trial or the safety of the conviction. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the conviction remained intact.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The conviction of the respondent for the murder of his wife was upheld, and he remained subject to the sentence previously imposed.

Orders