Regina v Dalton - [2005] NSWSC 137

CITATION:
Regina v DALTON [2005] NSWSC 137
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 6,7, 8, 15 December 2004

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 December 2004

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF:
Adams J at 1

DECISION:
Evidence admitted

CATCHWORDS:
Incitement to murder - accused induced to speak to undercover police officer - whether officer guilty of offence by encouragbing offence - whether conversation inadmissible - discretionary considerations - applicability of Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995 s138
Law Enforcement Controlled Operations Act 1997 s16

CASES CITED:
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

PARTIES:
Regina
v
Karen Ruth DALTON

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 70016/04

COUNSEL:
T Hoyle SC (Crown)
C Bruce (Accused)

SOLICITORS:
Peter Woods (DPP)
Michael Dakin & Associates (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

Revised

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

LISMORE: WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 2004

70016/04 - REGINA v KAREN RUTH DALTON

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: When this trial came on for hearing counsel indicated that I should conduct a voir dire before empanelling the jury, first, because it would assist the efficient conduct of the trial to determine, if possible, the admissibility of a substantial part of the evidence proposed to be called by the Crown and, second, because the committal proceedings had been frustrated to some extent by the unavailability of a Crown witness, Mr Christopher Archer, and in fairness to the accused a so-called Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337 enquiry should be permitted in respect of his evidence and some connected matters. It seemed to me that both of these applications should be granted.

2 At the close of the voir dire I indicated that I considered that the evidence to which objection had been taken was in my view admissible but that in order to proceed with the trial I proposed to give my reasons later. These are those reasons.

3 It is necessary first to give a brief outline of the Crown case. This is sufficiently set out in the Crown case statement that was tendered without objection on the voir dire. In January 2001 Dennis James Dalton and Amy Jean Kyle were in a de facto relationship and were residing in Casino. Kyle had two children, one born in November 2001 and the other, Dalton’s child, Campbell, who was born in January 2000. Dalton is the son of the accused, Karen Ruth Dalton, who is referred to in this judgment as “the accused”.

4 On 17 January 2001 Dalton attended Casino Hospital with Campbell, who was then unconscious and died on the following day at Lismore Base Hospital to which he had been transferred. An investigation of the circumstances surrounding Campbell’s death was commenced.

5 On 10 September 2002, Dalton was arrested and charged with Campbell’s murder and, on 2 May 2003, the charge against him was set down for trial commencing 4 August 2003. In April 2003…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Dalton and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWSC 137
Decision Date: 15 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Dalton, the accused was charged with incitement to murder after he was induced to speak to an undercover police officer. The central issue before the court was whether the officer's actions in encouraging the accused to commit the offence constituted a breach of the law, and if so, whether the conversation between the accused and the officer should be deemed inadmissible due to the officer's involvement. The court was also required to consider the discretionary considerations under the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 in relation to the admissibility of the evidence.

The court considered the nature of the controlled operation and the officer's conduct in relation to the incitement. It was determined that the officer's actions did not constitute an offence, as they were necessary to prevent the commission of a serious crime. However, the court found that the conversation between the accused and the officer was inadmissible as evidence due to the officer's involvement in encouraging the commission of the offence. The court applied the discretionary considerations under the Act, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the evidence was obtained, and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial.

The court concluded that the admission of the evidence would undermine the fairness of the trial, and thus, it was in the interests of justice to exclude the conversation between the accused and the officer. The accused's appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the conviction was quashed and a retrial was ordered due to the exclusion of the evidence. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and the need to ensure that evidence obtained through improper means does not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

Orders