Regina v Lawrence Holt - [2001] NSWSC 232

CITATION: Regina v Lawrence Holt [2001] NSWSC 232

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70082/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 26/3/01 and 28/3/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Lawrence Holt

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J

COUNSEL : P.J.P. Power - Crown
P.M. Winch - Accused

SOLICITORS: I. V. Knight - Crown Solicitor
M. Betts - Legal Aid Commission of NSW

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Reg v Vinh Le (2000) NSW CCA 49
The Queen v A.H. (1997) 42 NSWLR 702
O'Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566

DECISION: Sixteen separate rulings given

NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

Friday 30 March 2001

70082/2000 - Regina v Lawrence Holt

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR :
Introduction

1 Mr. Lawrence Holt has been presented in this Court for trial upon an indictment charging him with having murdered, on or about 20 June 1999 at Woolloomooloo, one Ronald Cross. The accused pleaded not guilty and he is now standing his trial in the Court, and by Judge alone, the necessary election in that behalf having been made in manner provided by section 16 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

2 The Crown case, as opened, is that the accused struck to the head of the deceased a blow, or a number of blows, with a metal bar, thereby inflicting fatal injury upon the deceased. It is clear that some person or persons did so kill the deceased; and there was located near the dead body a bloodied metal bar which appears to have been the murder weapon.

3 The killing occurred in a sandy area at the northern end of the Domain Car Parking Station, which station fronts Sir John Young Crescent in Central Sydney. It was at the time customary for homeless men to bed down at night in various then accessible parts of the station. The accused and the deceased were two such homeless men, and it seems that they slept fairly regularly in, or in the close vicinity of, the sandy area previously mentioned. The Crown contends that the two men were, at least, known to each other.

4 The Crown proposes to lead evidence that footprints of the accused were found when the investigating police first inspected, on 20 June 1999, the scene of the killing; and that there was evidence that some person or persons had swept the surface of those prints with a nearby broken branch. No fingerprints could be recovered from the branch, and there is nothing else about the branch that can be linked to the accused.

5 On 23 June 1999, that is to say some three days after the killing, the police took possession of certain clothing of the accused. On one of his boots were five blood spots. DNA testing suggests that the blood type is consistent with that of the deceased. Other blood spots were found on the accused’s jacket; and these, too, showed upon testing that the blood type…

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 Regina v Lawrence Holt

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lawrence Holt [2001] NSWSC 232
Case: [2001] NSWSC 232
Decision Date: 30 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Lawrence Holt, the defendant was on trial for the alleged murder of Ronald Cross on or around 20 June 1999 at Woolloomooloo. The Crown argued that the defendant struck the deceased with a metal bar, causing fatal injuries, and presented various pieces of evidence to support this claim. The court held a series of voir dire hearings to determine the admissibility of the evidence presented by the Crown.

The court found that several pieces of evidence, including evidence of the defendant's access to an iron bar, his threatening gestures, and his odd behaviour, were inadmissible as they did not have significant probative value in establishing whether the defendant struck the fatal blows to the deceased. The court also ruled that evidence of the defendant's psychiatric condition and evidence of an unrelated incident involving the defendant and a third party were inadmissible as they did not have a significant rational connection to the assessment of the existence of the fact in issue.

The court further found that certain hearsay evidence was inadmissible as it did not fit within any of the exceptions provided by the Evidence Act, or because its probative value was slight and was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. The court also excluded evidence of the defendant's statements to investigating police on the grounds that it would be unfair to use the evidence against him.

Ultimately, the court rejected the Crown's submissions based on the decision in O’Leary v The King, finding that the evidence available in the present particular case did not establish a connected series of events capable of being considered rationally as parts of a single transaction.

The final orders of the court are not explicitly stated in the text, but it can be inferred that the court would have excluded the inadmissible evidence from the trial and allowed the admissible evidence to be presented to the jury for their consideration.

Orders