Legal Research
Cases
Snyder (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Snyder (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 96 16 April 2021

Interlocutory Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0251

CLIFTON SNYDER (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To avoid the possibility of prejudice in the applicant’s trial, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

----

JUDGE:	PRIEST, KYROU and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 April 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 April 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 96
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Snyder] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Doyle, 26 November 2020)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Interlocutory Appeal — Hearsay — Trial of sexual offences — Complainant deceased — Whether complainant’s statements to police and evidence in committal proceedings admissible — Evidence of full extent of complainant’s psychiatric condition disclosed after committal — Whether probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice — Whether common law unfairness discretion applicable — Evidence Act 2008, ss 65 and 137 — Haddara v The Queen (2014) 43 VR 53 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant:	Ms R Shann and Ms T Skvortsova	SLKQ Lawyers
For the Respondent:	Ms E Ruddle QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KYROU JA
KAYE JA:

Introduction

An indictment filed in the County Court charges the applicant with six charges[2] of committing an indecent act with a child under 16[3] and thirty charges[4] of taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child under 16,[5] in the period between late 1993 and late 1994. On arraignment, the applicant pleaded not guilty.
[2]Charges 2, 7, 26, 29, 33 and 34.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 47(1).
[4]Charges 1, 3, 4 to 25, 27 to 28, 30 to 32, 35 and 36.
[5]Crimes Act 1958, s 45.

Significantly, the complainant, ‘EW’, suicided in 2019. She was born in 1978, and was aged 14 to 15 years at the time of the alleged offending. The applicant, born in 1971, was aged between 21 and 24 years when he allegedly committed the offences against her.

Prior to her death, EW made two statements to police, on 24 May and 19 June 2018 respectively.[6] The first statement, which is lengthy and detailed, contains more than a hundred paragraphs, and describes EW’s relationship with the applicant and the alleged offending. Of much shorter length, the second statement corrects an error in the first, and explains the relevance of a series of photographs to EW’s relationship with the applicant.
[6]The statements each contained an acknowledgment signed by EW in the presence of a police officer that the statement is true and correct and is made in the belief that a person making a false statement in the circumstances is liable to the penalties of perjury. See Criminal Procedure Act 2009, s 112(1).

EW also gave evidence at committal on 18 December 2018, during which she affirmed the truth of her two statements. She was also cross-examined at length — albeit…

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 Snyder (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Snyder (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 96
Case: [2021] VSCA 96
Decision Date: 16 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Snyder sought to appeal against an interlocutory decision that allowed the admission of hearsay evidence in his criminal trial for sexual offences. The deceased complainant had made statements to police and provided evidence in committal proceedings, which the prosecution sought to introduce at the trial. The issue before the court was whether the hearsay evidence was admissible, given the deceased complainant’s unavailability as a witness, and whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly in light of the complainant’s undisclosed psychiatric condition which was revealed after the committal proceedings. The court also considered whether the common law unfairness discretion could apply under the Evidence Act 2008, in light of the decision in Haddara v The Queen.

The court examined the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 and held that the hearsay evidence was admissible if its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In assessing this, the court considered the nature of the offences, the gravity of the allegations, and the reliability of the evidence. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was high due to the seriousness of the charges and the consistency of the statements. The undisclosed psychiatric condition of the complainant was also considered; however, the court held that this did not substantially affect the reliability of the evidence. The court concluded that the common law unfairness discretion did not apply as the statutory provisions provided adequate safeguards against unfair prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision to admit the hearsay evidence was upheld. The court ordered that the trial proceed with the admission of the police statements and evidence from the committal proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the probative value of the evidence in serious criminal cases, particularly when the complainant is unavailable and the reliability of the evidence is high. The court also noted that the statutory framework under the Evidence Act 2008 was sufficient to address any concerns about unfair prejudice.

Orders