Legal Research
Cases
R v Walker

R v Walker

Case [2017] NSWSC 997 27 July 2017

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay Evidence

Murder

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Walker [2017] NSWSC 997
Hearing dates: 24 July 2017, 25 July 2017 and 26 July 2017
Date of orders: 27 July 2017
Decision date: 27 July 2017
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Certain representations admissible.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – hearsay evidence – murder – death of domestic partner of accused – disputed representations – certain representations admissible
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203; [2002] HCA 2
Drew v R [2016] NSWCCA 310
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
Harris v R (2005) 158 A Crim R 454; [2005] NSWCCA 432,
Natasha Youkhana v R [2013] NSWCCA 85
R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; (2002) NSWCCA 386
R v Clark (2001) 123 A Crim R 506; [2001] NSWCCA 494
R v Gittany (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1737
R v Grogan & Slacke (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1191
R v Mankotia (1998) NSWSC 295
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304; [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Serratore [2001] NSWCCA 123.
R v Toki (No. 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
Sio v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 967; [2016] HCA 32
Williams v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 490
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Jamie Christopher Walker
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Maxwell QC with Ms J M Smith (Crown)
Ms B J Rigg SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jamison Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/124540
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Mr Walker has been charged with murdering Linda Locke, his de facto partner of some twenty years, in April 2015. The Crown case is that Ms Locke died as the result of injuries which Mr Walker inflicted, he intending to inflict really serious injury on her, during an episode of violence which was in part observed by neighbours.
Mr Walker gave inconsistent accounts of how Ms Locke came to be injured, both to attending ambulance officers and police on later interview. Whether Mr Walker did any act which substantially contributed to Ms Locke’s death, or intended to inflict a really serious injury, are in issue.
The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt firstly, that Mr Walker caused the injuries which resulted in Ms Locke’s death, excluding as a reasonable possibility that they occurred accidentally. Secondly, that Mr Walker intended to inflict really serious injury upon her.
The Crown proposes to lead evidence, to establish that Ms Locke’s relationship with Mr Walker was volatile, involving both verbal and physical abuse. It also proposes to lead transactional evidence about the events which occurred in the hours before her death, when it is alleged that there had been an ongoing argument between her and Mr Walker, followed by silence during which Mr Walker was observed to pull Ms Locke to the ground.
There is no issue between the parties that the Crown is…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2017] NSWSC 997
Case: [2017] NSWSC 997
Decision Date: 27 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Walker, the respondent was charged with the murder of his domestic partner. The deceased was found dead in their home, and the respondent was subsequently arrested and charged. The central issue in the case was whether certain hearsay statements made by the deceased were admissible as evidence in the respondent's trial. The statements in question were allegedly made by the deceased in the presence of third parties and were reported to the police. The respondent argued that the statements were inadmissible hearsay, while the prosecution maintained that they were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court was required to determine whether the hearsay statements were admissible under the 'state of mind' exception to the hearsay rule. The court considered whether the statements were made by the deceased in circumstances that demonstrated her state of mind, and whether that state of mind was relevant to a fact in issue in the case. The court also considered whether the statements were made spontaneously and in the course of the deceased's employment, as these factors could also render the statements admissible. Ultimately, the court found that the statements were admissible as they were made in circumstances that demonstrated the deceased's state of mind and were relevant to a fact in issue in the case.

The court held that the hearsay statements were admissible as evidence in the respondent's trial. The court found that the deceased's state of mind was relevant to the issue of whether the respondent had murdered her, and that the statements demonstrated her state of mind at the time they were made. The court also found that the statements were made spontaneously and in the course of the deceased's employment, which further supported their admissibility. As a result, the hearsay statements were admitted as evidence and considered by the jury in determining the respondent's guilt or innocence. The final orders of the court are not provided in the text.

Orders