Tasmania v Standage - [2013] TASSC 63

[2013] TASSC 63

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Standage [2013] TASSC 63

PARTIES: TASMANIA, State of

v
STANDAGE, Stephen Roy

FILE NO:  463/2010
DELIVERED ON:  30 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2, 3, 4 July and 25 July and 21, 22 and 23 October 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Estcourt J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Confessions and admissions – Statements – Functions of judge and jury – Determination of admissibility – Voir dire proceedings – Whether written statements made to police contained admissions - Whether statements were made in the course of official questioning – Whether caution was required – Lack of audio visual recording of admissions – Whether reasonable explanation as to why an audio visual record could not be made – Records of oral questioning – Whether initials on police statement were for the purpose of identification or adoption of statements contained within document - Whether circumstances of police interview were improper or unfair – Whether use of admissions at trial is unfair or unfairly prejudicial to accused.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss85, 85A, 86, 88, 90, 137, 138, 139.
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s27.
Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 (Tas).

Em v R (2007) 232 CLR 67; Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 2; Tasmania v Standage [2012] TASSC 88, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2740]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence - Particular cases – Other matters – Voir dire proceedings – Scenario evidence - Audio and visual recordings of admissions or confessions made by accused during undercover police operations – Whether probative value of evidence is outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to accused.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s137.
Tofilau v R (2007) 231 CLR 396; W v R (2006) 16 Tas R 1; Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2012] TASCCA 2; Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; Leaman v R [1987] TASSC 21, A9/1987; R v Tofilau (No 2) (2006) 13 VR 28; Tasmania v Standage [2012] TASSC 88, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2682]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

State of Tasmania: D Coates SC
Accused:T Jago SC

Solicitors:
State of Tasmania: Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2013] TASSC 63
Number of paragraphs: 173

Serial No 63/2013
File No 463/2010

STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN ROY STANDAGE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ESTCOURT J

30 October 2013

Background

The accused, Stephen Roy Standage, is charged with two counts of murder. Count 1 alleges that he murdered Ronald Frederick Jarvis by shooting him at Nugent on 31 July 1992. Count 2 alleges that he murdered John Lewis Thorn by shooting him at Lake Leake on 24 August 2006.

Counsel for the accused object to the admission into evidence of certain conversations between the accused and police officers which took place on 14 August 1992, 7 April 1993, 15 December 1998 and 17 December 1998 and which, it…

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 Standage

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Standage [2013] TASSC 63
Case: [2013] TASSC 63
Decision Date: 30 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Tasmania versus Standage presented itself to the court, where the primary dispute centred around the admissibility of certain statements made by the defendant during police interrogation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, with the focus on whether these statements constituted admissions and whether they were properly obtained. The defendant, Standage, was on trial for criminal offences, and the central issue was whether the statements he made during police questioning could be used as evidence against him in court.

The court had to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it needed to establish whether the written statements contained admissions by the defendant. Secondly, it had to decide if the statements were made during an official police interrogation, which would require the police to have provided a caution. Additionally, the court examined whether there was a reasonable explanation for the absence of an audio-visual recording of the interrogation, as well as the purpose of the initials found on the statement documents. The court also had to assess whether the circumstances of the police interview were improper or unfair, and whether the use of the admissions at the trial would be unfair or prejudicial to the defendant.

In its reasoning, the court found that the statements made by Standage were indeed admissions and had been made during an official police interrogation. The court determined that the police were required to provide a caution, but the absence of an audio-visual recording was reasonable given the circumstances. The initials on the documents served to identify the defendant rather than indicate an adoption of the statements. The court concluded that the interview was conducted in a manner that was neither improper nor unfair. Ultimately, the court ruled that the use of these statements at the trial would not be unfair or prejudicial to the defendant, thereby upholding their admissibility as evidence.

The court ordered that the statements in question be admitted as evidence in the trial of Standage, allowing the prosecution to use them in presenting their case. This decision was based on the findings that the statements were properly obtained admissions, the absence of an audio-visual recording was justified, and their use would not unfairly prejudice the defendant.

Orders