R v Tracey (No 6) - [2005] SASC 360

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Voir Dire)
R v TRACEY & ORS (NO 6)
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Nyland
22 September 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Application to exclude evidence of the finding of shotgun shells - whether evidence inadmissible as being irrelevant - whether evidence more prejudicial than probative - evidence held admissible.
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; Thompson and Wran v The Queen (1968) 117 CLR 313; Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517, discussed.

R v TRACEY & ORS (NO 6)
[2005] SASC 360
Voir Dire Ruling on Application for Exclusion of Evidence Relating to Finding of Shotgun Shells.

In para 8 of his second Rule 9 Application dated 15 February 2002, John Tracey sought an order excluding the evidence relating to shotgun shells which were found at McDonald’s restaurant, Elizabeth Way, Elizabeth on Friday 2 August 2002, on the ground that the evidence was inadmissible as being irrelevant. In the alternative, he sought an order that the evidence be excluded in the exercise of the court’s discretion as being unfairly obtained.
On 26 August 2005, Tracey pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter but the trial against Wallace, his co-accused, was still proceeding. As a result, Mr Longson, as counsel for Wallace, made an oral application to exclude the evidence relating to the shotgun shells in Wallace’s trial, but adopted the arguments earlier presented by Mr Peek for Tracey without making any further submissions. On 31 August 2005, I ruled that the evidence relating to the shotgun shells was admissible at Wallace’s trial but reserved my right to deliver detailed reasons at a later date.
At about 10 am on 2 August 2002, an employee of the McDonald’s restaurant found a number of grey coloured shotgun shells (Exhibit VDP110) in a bin in the outside car park. Alongside the shot gun shells was a yellow box which contained 39 .22 calibre bullets (Exhibit VDP011). The bullets were contained in a plastic holder inside the yellow box. Fingerprints located on the plastic holder were identified as being identical to fingerprints of Michael Wallace and John Tracy. No fingerprints, however, were obtained from the shotgun shells.
The prosecution did not allege that a shotgun was used in the shooting of Stuart Watson and objection was therefore taken by the defence to the admission of the evidence with respect to the shells as being irrelevant or, in the alternative, as being more prejudicial than probative.
Notwithstanding that it was not alleged that a shotgun was used to kill Stuart Watson, the prosecution maintained that the evidence relating to the shotgun shells had significant probative value as a result of its link to evidence obtained by way of a listening device which was installed at 114 Main North Road, Evanston, ie the home of Joshua Considine and Naomi Wallace.
At about 6.30 pm…

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 Tracey (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Tracey (No 6) [2005] SASC 360
Case: [2005] SASC 360
Decision Date: 22 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Tracey (No 6), the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained during the course of a criminal investigation. The accused, Tracey, applied to exclude evidence pertaining to the discovery of shotgun shells at a location relevant to the charges against him. The dispute centred on whether the evidence was relevant, and whether its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

The central legal issues before the Court were the relevance of the evidence and the balance between its probative value and any potential prejudicial effect. The Court was required to determine whether the evidence of the shotgun shells was admissible, considering both its relevance to the charges and the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused if the evidence were to be admitted. The Court had to assess whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial effect, in accordance with established legal principles.

The Court held that the evidence of the shotgun shells was relevant to the charges against Tracey and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. The Court emphasised the importance of relevance in the admissibility of evidence and noted that while prejudice could be a factor, it must be balanced against the probative value. The Court concluded that the evidence was admissible as it played a significant role in the context of the case and did not unfairly prejudice the accused to the extent that it should be excluded.

The Court's decision affirmed the admissibility of the evidence, thereby allowing the prosecution to present the evidence of the shotgun shells in the trial. This outcome highlights the Court's approach to balancing probative value and prejudicial effect, reinforcing the principle that relevance is a fundamental criterion for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders