R v Turnbull (No. 13)
[2016] NSWSC 785
•05 May 2016
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 13) [2016] NSWSC 785 Hearing dates: 5 May 2016 Date of orders: 05 May 2016 Decision date: 05 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Johnson J Decision: Evidence of valuation of properties allows.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder trial - shooting of environmental officer - defence objection to evidence of land valuation of relevant properties at different times - evidence of increased value of land if converted from timbered grazing properties to broadacre farms - evidence allowed Legislation Cited: --- Cases Cited: --- Texts Cited: --- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ian Robert Turnbull (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr PE Barrett (Crown)
Mr T Alexis SC; Ms C O’Neill (Accused)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Cole & Butler (Accused)
File Number(s): 2014/223920 Publication restriction: ---
Judgment
-
JOHNSON J: The Crown intends to call in its case Thomas Benjiman Donoghue, a Certified Practising Valuer. The statement of Mr Donoghue dated 15 March 2016 is MFI34.
-
Objection is taken on behalf of the Accused to the admissibility of evidence of Mr Donoghue. In essence, Mr Donoghue gives opinions as to valuations of “Colorado” and “Strathdoon” at three periods - mid-2011, July 2014 and March 2016, by reference to factors including the level of cultivation and the level of timbered grazing.
-
The opinions expressed reveal a significant increase in the value of each property as between mid-2011 and the latter dates.
-
The Crown submits that this evidence goes to the value of the properties and the relationship between the value of the properties and the degree of clearing which may be undertaken. It is said that this is relevant to issues in the trial, as to what was in the mind of the Accused at relevant times, at least as one factor.
-
It was submitted for the Accused that the evidence is irrelevant.
-
I was informed that evidence was to be led on behalf of the Accused as to the purchase prices for both properties. It was accepted by senior counsel for the Accused during the course of submissions that the more cleared the land is (and thus its increased capacity for farming), the more valuable the land would be.
-
In that sense, it does not seem that there is a real dispute that the process of clearing, put simply, increases the value of the land.
-
It does seem to me that evidence of valuation by Mr Donoghue is relevant to issues in the trial. What is in the mind of the Accused at different times is at the centre of the issues in this trial - what led him, in the end, to shoot dead Mr Turner on 29 July 2014.
-
The Accused himself, according to the evidence of Mr Strange, was said to advert to some financial aspects on 29 July 2014. Beyond that, however, it does seem to me that the evidence is relevant. I propose to admit it.
-
That said, whether it is admitted through the evidence of Mr Donoghue or in some other way, bearing in mind that there may be limited controversy, I do not presently pause to consider further. However, the evidence of Mr Donoghue will be admitted as evidence in the Crown case.
**********
Decision last updated: 20 June 2016
0
0
1