Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Farmer

Tasmania v Farmer

Case [2004] TASSC 104 9 July 2004

Type to search within this case.

[2004] TASSC 104

CITATION: Tasmania v Farmer [2004] TASSC 104

PARTIES:  TASMANIA
  v
  FARMER Shane Ronald

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL
FILE NO/S:  226/2003
DELIVERED ON:  9 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  22 – 30 June 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Similar facts – Relevance – Sexual offences – Requirement of significant probative value – Assessment of possible cross-contamination – Whether probative force weakened by cross-contamination or common cause.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss97, 98, 101, 137.
Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57; Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461, applied.
R v Randell [1999] TASSC 78, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [522]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction practice and procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Of counts – By statute – Same facts or series of offences of same or similar character – Prejudice to the accused – Severance.

Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528; De Jesus v R (1986) 61 ALJR 1, applied.
Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s311.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [722]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Tasmania:  M A Stoddart and P Sheriff
             Accused:  P A Dunn QC and D Grace QC
Solicitors:
             Tasmania:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Galbally Rolfe

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 104

Number of Paragraphs: 45

Serial No 104/2004
File No 226/2003

TASMANIA v SHANE RONALD FARMER

RULING DURING TRIAL SLICER J

9 July 2004

The accused has entered pleas to 28 counts comprised in the one indictment which alleges acts of or associated with sexual misconduct against 13 complainants over a 14 year period. Mr Farmer has, in accordance with the Criminal Code, s361A, sought rulings on a number of issues before the empanelment of a jury. Prior to the entry of pleas, the Court conducted, at the behest of the parties, an examination of certain witnesses, now commonly referred to as a "Basha Inquiry" (see R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337), a course similar to that permitted by the Justices Act 1959, s69A. During the course of the preliminary hearing, counsel for the prosecution indicated that the State would not be proceeding with five counts of the indictment and these rulings concern the remaining 23 allegations.

The rulings and orders sought can be categorised as:

(1)A motion to quash the indictment in accordance with the Code, s352, on the ground that it was:
"Calculated to prejudice or embarrass him in his defence to the charge".
The motion was not designed to bring the proceedings to a close, but as a procedural means of encompassing the various contentions which might result in severance or amendment to counts contained in the indictment. The motion, made at large, is dismissed.
(2)Application for severance. The prosecution has, as is permitted by the Code, s311(2), joined in a single indictment, those charges which it says:
"Arise substantially out of the same facts or closely related facts, or [which]…

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 Tasmania v Farmer

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Farmer [2004] TASSC 104
Case: [2004] TASSC 104
Decision Date: 9 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Tasmanian Court of Appeal considered an appeal brought by a defendant charged with multiple counts of sexual offences against children. The lower court had admitted evidence of similar fact incidents in relation to other children. The defendant challenged the admissibility of this evidence, arguing that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal test for admitting evidence of similar fact incidents and whether the lower court had correctly applied this test.

The court examined the legal principles governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence in sexual offence cases. It recognised that such evidence may be admitted if it possesses significant probative value, and the danger of unfair prejudice is not disproportionate. The court also considered the possibility of cross-contamination or common cause, which may affect the probative force of the evidence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the probative value of the similar fact evidence and determined that it was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court found that the evidence was relevant and could assist the jury in determining the defendant's intent and state of mind.

The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly admitted the similar fact evidence and that this decision did not lead to an unfair outcome. The court found that the evidence was properly considered in the context of the other evidence presented at trial and did not have an undue prejudicial effect on the jury. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower court were upheld. The court emphasised the importance of a careful and balanced approach when admitting similar fact evidence in sexual offence cases, taking into account the need to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring a fair trial for the complainants.

Orders