R v Waterton - [2019] QMC 6

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Waterton [2019] QMC 6

PARTIES:

Kristen Anton Anderson

(Complainant/Respondent)

v

Arwa May Waterton

(Defendant/Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-00157901/16(8)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application to exclude evidence of Annette Crozier

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2017, 12 June 2018

A/MAGISTRATE:

M Morrow

ORDER:

Application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

Law practitioners – Conduct of proceedings – Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors – Conduct of prosecutor in speaking to witness while under examination-in-chief – whether prejudiced fair trial

Unfairness – whether prejudicing fair trial of defendant – Trial proceedings current – Provision addendum Statement to Prosecution and conference with witness during adjournment whilst still subject to examination-in-chief

COUNSEL:

Mr JM Noud for Complainant/Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Cth Director of Public Prosecutions for Complainant/Respondent

Ms. Z Craveb, Solicitor. ATSI Legal Services (QLD) Ltd for the Defendant/Applicant

Arwa WATERTON is charged with three offences under s 135.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) in relation to obtaining a financial advantage for herself.

The matter has proceeded with evidence heard on 10 and 11 April 2017 and adjourned to hear further evidence.

On 18 August the matter was relisted for hearing. During the adjourned period, an application has been brought by the defendant to exclude the evidence of Annette CROZIER in the exercise of the Court’s discretion on the grounds of unfairness and public policy.

Chronologically the events are that this trial proceeded on 10 and 11 April 2017. Ms Crozier commenced giving evidence on 11 April but was stood down whilst under evidence-in-chief.

On 7 June 2017, Ms Crozier provided an addendum statement which was disclosed on 14 June 2017 to defence.

The trial was to resume on 18 August 2017 with a new Crown Prosecutor. On 15 August 2017 the Crown notified defence by email that a conference had been organised with Ms Crozier later that day and did defence have any objections. Further attempts were made to try to contact defence but there was no response.

A conference did take place and a detailed file note of the conference was taken and disclosed to the defence.

Defence, two days before the hearing was to resume, took issue with the Crown conferencing a witness during her examination-in-chief.

This application was brought on 18 August 2017 where the defence made application to adjourn the proceedings because of a death in the defendant’s family. The trial was adjourned.

On 18 August, directions were made by the Court for the filing and serving written submissions.

The defence argue:

(a) It is unfair to allow her evidence because of the ongoing investigation of the matter and the gathering of further evidence from Crozier in the intervening adjournment whilst she is giving her evidence in chief;

(b) An impropriety by the Prosecution that the complainant arranged addendum statements and further material from Crozier and conferencing with her whilst under oath, and the obtaining of new statements from new witnesses. It is said…

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 Waterton

Details

AGLC: R v Waterton [2019] QMC 6
Case: [2019] QMC 6
Decision Date: 12 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waterton involved a dispute between the Crown and the defendant, Waterton, concerning the conduct of the prosecutor during the trial. The issue at hand was whether the prosecutor's actions in speaking to a witness while under examination-in-chief constituted a breach of the rules of professional conduct and prejudiced the fairness of Waterton's trial. The matter was brought before the court to determine if the trial was indeed unfair due to the prosecutor's conduct. The court was tasked with interpreting the rules of professional conduct for both solicitors and barristers, specifically examining whether the prosecutor's actions during the trial were appropriate and did not compromise the fairness of the proceedings.

The court carefully considered the specific conduct of the prosecutor, including speaking to a witness during an adjournment while the witness was still subject to examination-in-chief. The central legal issue was whether this conduct breached the rules of professional conduct and, if so, whether it prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial. The court analysed the relevant provisions, including the addendum statement to the Prosecution and the potential implications of the prosecutor's conduct on the fairness of the trial. The court's decision hinged on whether the prosecutor's actions constituted a significant departure from the expected professional conduct and whether such actions could be considered prejudicial to the defendant's trial.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court concluded that the prosecutor's conduct did not breach the rules of professional conduct in a manner that prejudiced the fairness of Waterton's trial. The court found that the specific actions of the prosecutor, while perhaps not ideal, did not rise to the level of unfair prejudice that would necessitate a retrial. Therefore, the application was refused, and the trial proceeded without any further orders regarding the conduct in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application is refused

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 Waterton [2019] QMC 6
PARTIES:	Kristen Anton Anderson (Complainant/Respondent) v Arwa May Waterton (Defendant/Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00157901/16(8)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application to exclude evidence of Annette Crozier
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2017, 12 June 2018
A/MAGISTRATE:	M Morrow
ORDER:	Application is refused
CATCHWORDS:	Law practitioners – Conduct of proceedings – Rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors – Conduct of prosecutor in speaking to witness while under examination-in-chief – whether prejudiced fair trial Unfairness – whether prejudicing fair trial of defendant – Trial proceedings current – Provision addendum Statement to Prosecution and conference with witness during adjournment whilst still subject to examination-in-chief
COUNSEL:	Mr JM Noud for Complainant/Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Cth Director of Public Prosecutions for Complainant/Respondent Ms. Z Craveb, Solicitor. ATSI Legal Services (QLD) Ltd for the Defendant/Applicant