Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Standage

Tasmania v Standage

Case [2012] TASSC 88 21 December 2012

Admissibility of Evidence

Joinder

Unfair Prejudice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2012] TASSC 88

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Standage [2012] TASSC 88

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  STANDAGE, Stephen Roy

FILE NO/S:  463/2010, 84/2012
DELIVERED ON:  21 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 October 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Propensity, tendency and coincidence – Admissibility and relevancy – Tendency and coincidence evidence under the uniform evidence law – Generally – Unfair prejudice – Reliance on jurors to comply with directions.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss97(1), 101(2), 135(a), 137.
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131; Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297, KMJv Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 7, applied.
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; Western Australia v Bowen (2006) 32 WAR 81; Marlow and Kelly v R [2001] TASSC 146; Owen v R [2001] TASSC 79; Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41, Leaman v R (1987) 28 A Crim R 104, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2780]

Criminal Law – Procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Of counts – By statute – Same facts or series of offences of same or similar character.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), ss311(2), 326(3).
R v Clayton-Wright [1948] 2 All ER 763; R v Kray [1970] 1 QB 125; Ludlowv Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29; R v Anderson (1973) 5 SASR 256; Sutton v R (1984) 152 CLR 528; De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1; Lancaster v R [1989] WAR 83, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3075]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  D J Gunson SC
             Respondent:  D G Coates SC
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Gunson Williams
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 88
Number of paragraphs: 134

Serial No 88/2012

File Nos 463/2010

84/2012

STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN ROY STANDAGE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

21 December 2012

The accused, Stephen Standage, applies pursuant to the Criminal Code 1924 ("the Code"), s326(3), for the severance of an indictment in which he 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, Mr D J Gunson SC, submits that the indictment should be severed because:

· the inclusion of these counts in the same indictment contravenes the Code, s311(2), as they are not a "series of crimes of the same or a similar character"; and
· the Court should exercise its discretion to sever the indictment pursuant to the Code, s326(3), because the accused "may be prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by reason of being charged with more than one crime on the same indictment".

Mr Gunson characterised the first of the above issues as critical and the second issue as a "fall back…

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 [2012] TASSC 88
Case: [2012] TASSC 88
Decision Date: 21 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Standage, the respondent was charged with a series of sexual offences against his daughter and another child. The trial judge admitted evidence of the respondent's previous sexual abuse of his daughter as evidence of the tendency and coincidence of the charged offences under the uniform evidence law. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining the admissibility of this evidence, the extent of the trial judge's direction to the jury, and whether the joinder of the charges was permissible under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

The court had to consider whether the trial judge properly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence of previous sexual abuse, and whether the directions given to the jury were adequate to ensure that the evidence was not considered as substantive evidence of the respondent's guilt. The court also had to determine whether the joinder of the charges was permissible under the Criminal Procedure Act, given that the offences were of the same or similar character and arose out of the same set of facts.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence, as it was relevant to the issue of tendency and coincidence, and the directions given to the jury were sufficient to prevent the jury from considering the evidence as substantive evidence of the respondent's guilt. The court also found that the joinder of the charges was permissible under the Criminal Procedure Act, as the offences were of the same or similar character and arose out of the same set of facts.

The court upheld the convictions of the respondent, but ordered a retrial on the charge of aggravated sexual intercourse with a child under the age of fourteen years, as the trial judge's direction to the jury on this charge was inadequate.

Orders