R v Turnbull (No. 17) - [2016] NSWSC 789

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 17) [2016] NSWSC 789
Hearing dates: 10 May 2016, 11 May 2016
Date of orders: 11 May 2016
Decision date: 11 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Tender of email (MFI53) rejected.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder trial - shooting of environmental officer - defence tender of email containing information provided to the Office of Environment and Heritage - tender rejected
Legislation Cited: ---
Cases Cited: R v Turnbull (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 439
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ian Robert Turnbull (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr PE Barrett (Crown)
Mr T Alexis SC; Ms C O’Neill (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Cole & Butler (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/223920
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: In the course of cross-examination yesterday of Mr Terrence Bailey, there was tendered by senior counsel for the Accused, a document which is MFI53 (T667), to which the Crown took objection.
The argument on the admissibility of this document commenced, proceeded a short way and was then deferred until today as the day had been reserved for legal argument on a range of issues. Mr Bailey is to return to the witness box tomorrow and it is appropriate that I give a ruling on this tender.
MFI53 is an email dated 23 August 2012 containing what is said to be the details of a conversation that Tom Celebrezze had with Anna Simmons about an event in August 2012 which is said to have involved Mr Glen Turner.
I note that senior counsel for the Accused has indicated that he would have in mind tendering, as well, MFIs 54 and 55, with that approach being dependent to a considerable extent on the outcome of the tender of MFI53. I note that MFIs 54 and 55 are handwritten notes of conversations said to have been had with persons concerning the same alleged event as that discussed by Ms Simmons.
The Court has been informed that Ms Simmons is intended to be called as a witness in the defence case. The suggested relevance of her evidence is that the event in August 2012 involving Mr Turner caused her some upset and she passed on information about that to the Accused. It is submitted that the state of mind of the Accused in that respect is pertinent and feeds into other issues in the trial, including his perception of the role of Mr Turner, an officer with the Office of Environment and Heritage.
The Crown has objected to the evidence on the basis of relevance and as to its form and content in the sense of what is contained in MFI53.
I note that, in R v Turnbull (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 439 at [101], I referred to the intention of the defence to rely upon the account of Ms Simmons concerning an event in August 2012 as tendency evidence. For…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Turnbull (No. 17) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 789
Decision Date: 11 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turnbull (No. 17), the appellant was charged with the murder of an environmental officer, who was shot during an incident in the state of New South Wales. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the trial judge was tasked with determining the guilt or innocence of the appellant. The key issue for the court was whether the appellant had acted with the requisite intent to commit murder, specifically whether he had acted with malice aforethought. Additionally, the court had to decide on the admissibility of an email, which the defence sought to tender as evidence.

The court focused on whether the email contained relevant information that could potentially exonerate the appellant or provide context for the incident. The defence argued that the email, which contained information provided to the Office of Environment and Heritage, could demonstrate that the environmental officer had been acting unlawfully or had provoked the situation. However, the trial judge rejected the tender of the email, finding it irrelevant to the central issue of the appellant's intent at the time of the shooting. The court held that the email did not directly address the appellant's state of mind or provide any direct evidence of the officer's conduct that could have influenced the appellant's actions.

Ultimately, the court found the appellant guilty of murder, holding that the evidence presented demonstrated the requisite intent to commit the crime. The email, being deemed irrelevant, was excluded from the trial. The court's decision hinged on the appellant's actions and the evidence of his intent at the time of the shooting, rather than the contents of the email. The trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of the email did not impact the outcome of the case, as the evidence of the appellant's actions and intent was deemed sufficient to secure a conviction.

Orders