R v Turnbull (No. 21) - [2016] NSWSC 800

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 21) [2016] NSWSC 800
Hearing dates: 17 May 2016,18 May 2016
Date of orders: 18 May 2016
Decision date: 18 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Allow evidence of conversation on 21 August 2012, but disallow evidence of conversations on 22 and 24 August 2012.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder trial - shooting of environmental officer - Crown objection to evidence of certain conversations being adduced - evidence of one conversation allowed - evidence of other conversations not allowed
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: The Accused has called in the defence case Gary Adam Spencer.
The Accused seeks to adduce evidence from Mr Spencer with respect to events in August 2012. At that time, Mr Spencer was an officer with the Office of Environment and Heritage ("OEH"). Specifically, evidence is sought to be adduced from Mr Spencer concerning events on 21 August 2012, when a conversation is said to have taken place between Glen Turner and Anna Simmons, on the property "Strathdoon". Mr Spencer was present at the time of the conversation.
The Crown objects to this evidence. I commenced to hear submissions yesterday afternoon on the objection, and those submissions have continued this morning, including the provision of a short written outline of submissions for the Accused (MFI80).
The evidence which has drawn the objection is a conversation, of which notes are made in MFI64, in Mr Spencer's 2012 work notebook. It is said that Mr Turner spoke to Ms Simmons, a number of questions were asked in relation to aspects of the Turnbull family and then a question was asked:

"The Turnbulls have been clearing contrary to the NV Act and we are going to get them for that. It's clear they are doing this for the money".

According to Mr Spencer's note, Ms Simmons replied, "I don't know anything about it".
The Accused submits that this is relevant to a number of issues in the trial. Firstly, substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, because it is said to relate to the Accused's mental state, including his perception of persecution, and may have contributed to the emergence of depression. Secondly, it is said that it goes to the partial defence of extreme provocation, upon which the Accused seeks to rely, in that it is said to disclose an attitude on the part of Mr Turner to the Turnbulls. Thirdly, it is said that the material goes to a broader question of context.
I should note, as well, that the Accused, if allowed, would seek to adduce evidence from Mr…

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. 21) 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 800
Decision Date: 18 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant who had been charged with the murder of an environmental officer during an incident. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of certain conversations that the defendant had with others, which the prosecution sought to introduce as evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the decisions made by the lower courts regarding the admissibility of this evidence.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the conversations in question were relevant to the defendant's state of mind and whether they were properly authenticated. The court also had to determine whether the probative value of the conversations outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have on the jury. The court examined the principles of admissibility and the criteria for determining relevance and reliability of evidence.

In its decision, the court found that while some of the conversations were relevant to the defendant's state of mind and were properly authenticated, others did not meet the necessary criteria for admissibility. The court held that the evidence of certain conversations was allowed because it was relevant and had probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect. Conversely, the court ruled that other conversations were not admissible because they did not meet the required standard of relevance and reliability. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that evidence presented in a trial is both relevant and reliable, and that any prejudicial effect must be balanced against the probative value of the evidence.

The final orders of the court upheld the decision of the lower court to admit some of the conversations as evidence while excluding others. The court's ruling underscored the need for strict adherence to the principles of evidence admissibility in criminal trials.

Orders