R v Weeding, Mark Alan - [1998] TASSC 125

125/1998

PARTIES:  R
  v
  WEEDING, Mark Alan

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  198/1997
DELIVERED:  9 October 1998
HEARING DATE/S:  5, 6, 7, 8, 9 October 1998
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

Edited edition of Reasons for Judgment given orally.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Crown:  A R Jacobs
           Accused:  S J Cooper and R P Collinson
Solicitors:
           Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused:  Ogilvie McKenna

Judgment category classification:
Court Computer Code:
Judgment ID Number:  125/1998
Number of pages:  2

Serial No 125/1998
File No 198/1997

THE QUEEN v MARK ALAN WEEDING

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

RULING GIVEN ORALLY DURING COURSE OF TRIAL 9 October 1998

The Crown seeks to lead evidence of a conversation claimed to have occurred between the accused and a prison officer following remand of that accused in relation to serious crimes. The accused was suspected of murder and had been interviewed by police for some four hours on 2 June 1997. During that interview, he had made admissions in relation to a number of crimes which involved the deceased. He had, however, denied any involvement in the act of killing. He was further questioned by police on 3 June and again denied involvement. Following that interview he was placed before a Court of Petty Sessions and further remanded. He spoke briefly with his solicitor before transfer to the prison.

When remanded on 3 June, the accused was kept at the prison hospital, presumably for observation. On the morning of 4 June, a prison officer was involved in a conversation with the accused whilst that officer was carrying out duties in connection with another prisoner. At the conclusion of the conversation, the officer entered into his notebook his recollection of the conversation and reported its occurrence to a superior officer. By 3pm that day the officer had provided a statement to a detective constable and the notebook was retained by the police. On 4 June, police officers further interrogated the accused in relation to the murder during which the accused admitted killing the deceased.

No reference was made by those officers, during the course of the video interview, to the conversation, the notes taken or the existence of the record made by the prison officer. No opportunity was afforded by the prison officer or the interviewing police, to the accused, to check the accuracy or otherwise of the notes. Given that the import of the conversation is in the detail, rather than the general substance, the evidence of the accused given on the voir dire that he does not take issue with the general substance of the notes does not mean that the reliability of that detail is established.

The evidence is admissible and the question is whether the Court should exercise its discretion by excluding it. The principles governing the exercise of discretion have been stated by the High Court in a number of decisions commencing with Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, R v Cleland (1982) 151 CLR 1, Merchant (1971)…

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 Weeding, Mark Alan

Details

AGLC: R v Weeding, Mark Alan [1998] TASSC 125
Case: [1998] TASSC 125
Decision Date: 9 October 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of The Queen v Mark Alan Weeding was presided over by Justice Slicer. The matter concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a conversation between the accused, Mark Alan Weeding, and a prison officer following his remand. Weeding was facing serious charges, including murder, and had made certain admissions during police interviews, though he consistently denied involvement in the actual act of killing. Following his remand, a prison officer engaged in a conversation with Weeding, which the officer later documented in a notebook and reported to a superior officer. The notebook was subsequently handed over to a detective constable, and the recorded conversation was intended to be used as evidence in the trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conversation between the prison officer and Weeding should be admitted as evidence. The court needed to determine if the evidence was obtained fairly and reliably and if its admission would be consistent with legal and public policy considerations. Notably, the court had to consider the reliability of the evidence, the fairness of its procurement, and the potential prejudicial effect against its probative value.

Justice Slicer concluded that the evidence should be excluded. The court found that the conversation's reliability was questionable since the prison officer had no independent recollection of the details and relied entirely on notes taken after the event. Furthermore, Weeding was not given an opportunity to verify or contest the accuracy of the notes, which undermined their reliability. The court also highlighted that the prison officer did not inform Weeding that the conversation could be reported to investigating officers, which made the evidence unfair. Lastly, the court determined that admitting such evidence would undermine the integrity of the legislative scheme designed to regulate the interrogation of suspects in custody, as outlined in the Criminal Law (Detection and Interrogation) Act 1995. The prejudicial effect of the evidence, which might give undue weight to the claimed verbatim conversation, outweighed its probative value. Therefore, the evidence was excluded from the trial.

Orders