R v Vaughan; ex parte - [2006] QCA 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vaughan; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2006] QCA 216

PARTIES:

R
v
VAUGHAN, Paul Anthony
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 107 of 2006
SC No 388 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 668A Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

In answer to the Attorney-General’s reference question:
“Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine the admissibility of the propensity evidence?”
The learned judge did not misapply the correct test

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where Vaughan was charged with murdering Nina Lee Lewis; entering Lewis’ dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence; assaulting Lewis with intent to rape her; unlawfully depriving Lewis of her personal liberty; unlawfully using a motor vehicle of which Lewis was in lawful possession without her consent; and wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to the same motor vehicle – whether evidence of the commission of an earlier offence of assault against SM with intent to commit rape should be admitted on Vaughan’s trial for murder, assault with intent to commit rape, and other offences in relation to Lewis – where Vaughan applied to exclude evidence of earlier offence – where the Prosecution contended the following features were common to both offences against SM and Lewis: the offender abducted a young woman for sexual purposes, drove the intended victim to bushland and he took tape with him, in each case, tape belonging to Vaughan – where first judge applied a test to determine the admissibility of propensity evidence, which was subsequently declared inappropriate by the High Court in Phillips v R (2006) 224 ALR 216, and determined that SM’s evidence was admissible – whether application of inappropriate test created a special reason under s 590AA(3) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) justifying a reconsideration of first judge’s ruling that SM’s evidence was admissible and should not be excluded

EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where Vaughan applied for a order under s 597A Criminal Code for a separate trial on the charge of assault with intent to commit rape – where Vaughan argued first judge’s ruling rendered SM’s evidence admissible in trial on the assault with intent to commit rape charge but not the trial on the murder and other charges – where severance of charges would be either inconsistent with the first judge’s decision to admit SM’s evidence or would involve overturning the decision of the first judge – where second judge decided in those circumstances it was appropriate to re-open earlier ruling under s 590AA(3) Criminal Code – whether this result justified reconsideration of first judge’s…

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 Vaughan; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Vaughan; ex parte [2006] QCA 216
Case: [2006] QCA 216
Decision Date: 16 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vaughan was charged with the murder of Nina Lee Lewis, as well as several other serious offences including assault with intent to rape, deprivation of liberty, and arson. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the Attorney-General seeking clarification on the admissibility of evidence related to a previous offence committed by Vaughan. The central issue before the court was whether evidence of an earlier offence, where Vaughan assaulted another woman with intent to commit rape, should be admitted in Vaughan's trial for the crimes committed against Lewis. The court also had to consider whether the previous ruling on the admissibility of this evidence should be reconsidered and whether a separate trial for the assault charge should be granted.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the admissibility of propensity evidence under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. The court had to assess whether the first judge correctly applied the test for admissibility and if the second judge's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence was based on the correct legal principles. Additionally, the court considered the implications of the first judge's ruling on the potential severance of charges and the appropriate course of action in light of the earlier ruling.

In its reasoning, the court found that the first judge had applied an incorrect test in determining the admissibility of the earlier offence evidence, a test that was subsequently declared inappropriate by the High Court in Phillips v R. However, the court noted that the second judge did not misapply the correct test when ruling that the evidence was inadmissible. The court concluded that the second judge articulated and applied the correct test for admissibility, thus affirming the decision to exclude the evidence from the trial on the murder and other charges.

The court's final orders addressed the Attorney-General's reference question, confirming that the second judge applied the correct test in determining the admissibility of the propensity evidence. The court did not find any misapplication of the relevant legal principles by the second judge, thereby upholding the decision to exclude the evidence in question from the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

In answer to the Attorney-General’s reference question:

“Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine the admissibility of the propensity evidence?”

The learned judge did not misapply the correct test

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Vaughan; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2006] QCA 216
PARTIES:	R v VAUGHAN, Paul Anthony (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 107 of 2006 SC No 388 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Reference under s 668A Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	In answer to the Attorney-General’s reference question: “Did the learned judge apply the correct test to determine the admissibility of the propensity evidence?” The learned judge did not misapply the correct test
CATCHWORDS:	EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where Vaughan was charged with murdering Nina Lee Lewis; entering Lewis’ dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence; assaulting Lewis with intent to rape her; unlawfully depriving Lewis of her personal liberty; unlawfully using a motor vehicle of which Lewis was in lawful possession without her consent; and wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to the same motor vehicle – whether evidence of the commission of an earlier offence of assault against SM with intent to commit rape should be admitted on Vaughan’s trial for murder, assault with intent to commit rape, and other offences in relation to Lewis – where Vaughan applied to exclude evidence of earlier offence – where the Prosecution contended the following features were common to both offences against SM and Lewis: the offender abducted a young woman for sexual purposes, drove the intended victim to bushland and he took tape with him, in each case, tape belonging to Vaughan – where first judge applied a test to determine the admissibility of propensity evidence, which was subsequently declared inappropriate by the High Court in Phillips v R (2006) 224 ALR 216, and determined that SM’s evidence was admissible – whether application of inappropriate test created a special reason under s 590AA(3) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) justifying a reconsideration of first judge’s ruling that SM’s evidence was admissible and should not be excluded EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY SIMILAR FACTS – IN GENERAL – RELEVANT PRINCIPLES – where Vaughan applied for a order under s 597A Criminal Code for a separate trial on the charge of assault with intent to commit rape – where Vaughan argued first judge’s ruling rendered SM’s evidence admissible in trial on the assault with intent to commit rape charge but not the trial on the murder and other charges – where severance of charges would be either inconsistent with the first judge’s decision to admit SM’s evidence or would involve overturning the decision of the first judge – where second judge decided in those circumstances it was appropriate to re-open earlier ruling under s 590AA(3) Criminal Code – whether this result justified reconsideration of first judge’s…