R v Wiggins - [2021] NSWSC 719

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wiggins [2021] NSWSC 719
Hearing dates: 16 June 2021
Date of orders: 18 June 2021
Decision date: 18 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
See [37], [48].

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — application to exclude evidence – ss 55, 98, 137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – whether evidence of the accused driving past the deceased’s house following a suspicious house fire five months prior to the shooting is relevant and admissible – held, evidence is relevant to motive and admissible – whether videos of accused participating in MMA bouts admissible – whether unfair prejudice due to violent nature of sport – where accused participating in organised and legal sporting activity – where more violent portions of fights are edited out of the videos – held, videos of MMA bouts admissible

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 98, 137

Cases Cited:
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Colby [1999] NSWCCA 261

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Matthew Paul Wiggins (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Barrett (Crown)
Mr D Dalton SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Khan Law & Associates

File Number(s): 2013/13092

Judgment

Matthew Paul Wiggins is to stand trial on 21 June 2021 for the murder of Darko Janceski (“the deceased”) and the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on the deceased’s father, Slobodan Janceski.
The shooting of the deceased took place on 14 April 2012 in the front yard of his parents’ home. The gunman rode by on a blue and white Yamaha WR 450 trail bike and stopped outside the house. The gunman was wearing a jacket, motorcycle helmet, Prada sunglasses, a balaclava and gloves. He shot the deceased and then engaged in an altercation with the deceased’s father, who ran outside to confront the gunman. He knocked off the gunman’s helmet and sunglasses and suffered injuries to his face constituting grievous bodily harm.
It is the Crown case that Mr Wiggins was the gunman. The Crown case is circumstantial. One aspect of the Crown case is an alleged motive on the part of the accused. It is common ground that the accused was a close friend of Mr Goran Nikolovski, who disappeared on 31 October 2011 and is presumed to be dead. His body has never been found. The deceased was believed by some, including Mr Nikolovski’s partner, to be involved in his disappearance.
Other circumstances relied upon by the Crown include that the accused’s DNA was found on the motorcycle helmet and Prada sunglasses left behind at the scene; that the Yamaha motorcycle used by the gunman was similar to one owned by Mr Madden, who was the friend of a close friend of the accused, Mr Ferguson, and to which the accused had access; that the Yamaha used in the murder was last seen…

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 Wiggins

Details

AGLC: R v Wiggins [2021] NSWSC 719
Case: [2021] NSWSC 719
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the King versus Wiggins, the dispute involved a criminal case where the accused was charged with murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain pieces of evidence were relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to consider the admissibility of evidence showing the accused driving past the deceased’s house following a suspicious fire, and videos of the accused participating in mixed martial arts bouts.

The court examined the relevance and admissibility of the evidence under sections 55, 98, and 137 of the Evidence Act. Regarding the evidence of the accused driving past the deceased’s house, the court held that it was relevant to establishing motive and was therefore admissible. The court reasoned that the timing and circumstances of the accused's actions could provide insight into potential motivations for the alleged crime. As for the MMA videos, the court found that the videos were admissible, despite their violent nature, because they depicted the accused participating in an organised and legal sporting activity. The court determined that the videos, even when more violent portions were edited out, did not create unfair prejudice. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant to the accused's character and propensities and thus admissible under the provisions of the Evidence Act.

The court's final orders allowed the evidence of the accused driving past the deceased’s house and the edited MMA videos to be admitted in the trial. These decisions were pivotal in shaping the admissibility of evidence in relation to motive and character in the case.

Orders