Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Mayne

Tasmania v Mayne

Case [2009] TASSC 82 24 August 2009

Admissibility of Evidence

Judicial Review

Prejudicial Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2009] TASSC 82

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Mayne [2009] TASSC 82

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, State of
  v
  MAYNE, Malcolm Joshua
  RICHARDSON, Caine Robert
  JONES, Allan Rex

FILE NO/S: 104/2008

154/2008
155/2008

DELIVERED ON:  24 August 2009 (Ruling delivered orally)
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATES:  18 – 21, 24 – 27 August 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Porter J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence – Particular cases – Other matters - Unfavourable witnesses – Prior inconsistent statements tendered – Statements evidence of facts asserted – Witnesses claiming no memory of events or making statements – Effective inability to cross-examine as to asserted facts — Probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence excluded.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss43, 60, 137.
R v Suteski (2002) 56 NSWLR 182; Galvin v R (2006) 126 A Crim R 449, applied.
R v Adam (2001) 207 CLR 96, considered
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2682]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  J P Ransom
             Accused Mayne:  A J Hall
             Accused Richardson:  E Hughes
             Accused Jones:  M L Doyle

Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused Mayne:  C N Dockray
             Accused Richardson:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Accused Jones:  Beeton & Mansell

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 82
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 82/2009
File Nos 104/2008
154/2008
155/2008

STATE OF TASMANIA v MALCOLM JOSHUA MAYNE,
CAINE ROBERT RICHARDSON and ALLAN REX JONES

EDITED REASONS FOR RULING (Delivered orally) PORTER J

24 August 2009

[Introduction]

[The accused were each charged with one count of aggravated armed robbery. The allegation was that shortly after 10pm on 15 February 2008, they had entered the gaming room of an hotel, and robbed the cashier. CCTV footage showed three disguised persons, with two carrying sawn-off shotguns. One was apparently wearing black stocking material over his head. A substantial part of the Crown case was to come from Savhanna (sic) Harwood and Brydon Bennett. Their anticipated evidence was that the three accused had come to their home at 11 Kay Street, Kings Meadows, very shortly after the robbery. The accused asked to hide some things and were later seen by Mr Bennett burning items in the backyard. Mr Bennett's evidence was to be that the accused, Malcolm Mayne, had admitted to the robbery. On 18 February 2008 police found at 11 Kay Street, two shotguns, burnt clothing material, and burnt plastic trays which were later established to have come from the hotel.]

[Neither Ms Harwood nor Mr Bennett answered to a final notice to appear, and warrants were issued for their arrest. They were in custody at the time of being called to give evidence. In evidence before the jury, they both acknowledged that they were not in Court voluntarily. Mr Bennett initially refused to be sworn or affirmed as a witness. He was stood down as a witness until the next day under threat of contempt proceedings, and made an affirmation when recalled. Each witness claimed…

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 Mayne

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Mayne [2009] TASSC 82
Case: [2009] TASSC 82
Decision Date: 24 August 2009 (Ruling delivered orally)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania brought proceedings against Mayne in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, contesting the admissibility of certain evidence in a criminal trial. The core dispute centred around the defendant's prior inconsistent statements, which the prosecution sought to introduce as evidence. The trial judge had excluded the evidence, finding that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The legal issues the court had to decide involved the balance between the probative value of evidence and the potential for unfair prejudice. The court examined whether the exclusion of the prior inconsistent statements was justified given the risk they posed to the fairness of the trial. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's inability to effectively cross-examine the witnesses on the statements made the evidence unfairly prejudicial.

The court held that the exclusion of the prior inconsistent statements was justified. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was significantly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, as the witnesses claimed no memory of the events or the statements they had previously made. The court determined that the defendant's effective inability to cross-examine the witnesses about the asserted facts further compounded the risk of prejudice. Consequently, the evidence was excluded from the trial.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania confirmed the trial judge's decision to exclude the contested evidence, upholding the balance between the probative value of evidence and the need to maintain a fair trial. The court did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond affirming the exclusion of the prior inconsistent statements.

Orders