Tasmania v H - [2015] TASSC 36

[2015] TASSC 36

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v H [2015] TASSC 36

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  H, B L
  HALL, Jamie Reginald

FILE NOS: 39/2013

224/2013

DELIVERED ON:  27 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  13 March, 27 April 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Propensity, tendency and co-incidence – Admissibility and relevancy – Tendency and co-incidence evidence under the uniform evidence law – Generally – Tendency to rob newsagencies – Striking similarities between events and circumstances.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), sss 97(1), 98(1), 101(2).
R v Lockyer (1996) 89 A Crim R 457; L v Tasmania (2006) 15 Tas R 381; R v Forward (2009) 273 ALR 286; R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; BP v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 303, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2780]

Criminal Law – Procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Joint or separate trial – Embarrassment or prejudice – Aggravated armed robbery – Evidence of co-accused's participation in other robberies.

Criminal Code (Tas), s 330(1)(a).
Leaman v The Queen (1987) 28 A Crim R 104, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3079]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  A Shand
             Accused H:  K Baumeler
             Accused Hall:  T Kovacic
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused H:  No solicitors
             Accused Hall:  No solicitors

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 36
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 36/2015
File Nos 39/2013
224/2013

STATE OF TASMANIA v B L H
and JAMIE REGINALD HALL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

27 April 2015

The two accused have been jointly indicted on a single charge of aggravated armed robbery. Both have pleaded not guilty.
The Crown wishes to rely on certain evidence relating to Mr Hall as both tendency evidence and coincidence evidence. Both accused object to the admission of that evidence. In the event that it is admitted, B L H seeks an order for the indictment to be severed. The evidence in question relates to two other armed robberies that were committed by Mr Hall, both committed at suburban newsagencies, both committed at about 4.30pm, both involving a staff member being threatened with a knife, both involving Mr Hall jumping over the counter and taking cash, and both involving an arrangement for a car and a driver to be ready for his departure.
The case against both accused is wholly circumstantial. The Crown alleges that Mr Hall and a youth named S entered a newsagency at Sandy Bay at about 4.30pm on 25 January 2013 and robbed a staff member of cash while B L H waited for them in a getaway vehicle. The robbery was filmed by four closed circuit television cameras. The footage shows two robbers entering the newsagency and carrying out the robbery, but they wore hooded jackets with the hoods up, as well as cloths over their faces. They cannot be recognised from the footage. One of the robbers…

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 H

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v H [2015] TASSC 36
Case: [2015] TASSC 36
Decision Date: 27 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania brought an appeal against a decision of the trial judge to exclude evidence of other robberies of newsagencies. The evidence was sought to be introduced under the propensity provisions of the uniform evidence law, and the court was required to decide whether the evidence was admissible. The court considered that the evidence of prior acts was highly probative of the propensity of the defendant to rob newsagencies. The court found that the evidence of the previous newsagency robberies was relevant and admissible as it showed a striking similarity between the events and circumstances of the present case. The evidence also established a propensity to rob newsagencies, which was a fact of consequence in the case. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge to reassess the evidence in the light of the court's findings.

Orders