The King v Hunt

[2025] NTSC 76

CITATION:The King v Hunt [2025] NTSC 76

PARTIES:THE KING

v

HUNT, Timothy

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction

FILE NO:22314625

DELIVERED:  17 October 2025

HEARING DATES:  30-31 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF:  Brownhill J

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance - Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) ss 97(1), 102(2) - Whether testimonial evidence relating to the accused cutting the deceased's throat and making a threat to cut the throat of a witness admissible as tendency evidence – Single incidence of conduct in addition to charged conduct – Tendency evidence made up of a single instance of conduct in addition to alleged conduct may have significant probative value – Whether tendency to apply bladed weapons to throats of others or make threats to do so makes it more likely that the accused cut the deceased’s throat – Tendency to apply bladed weapons to the throats of others or threaten to do so found to make it more likely that the accused cut the deceased’s throat with a knife – Proposed tendency evidence found to have significant probative value – Probative value found to outweigh unfair prejudice to accused – Proposed tendency evidence found to be admissible

EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act ss 81, 85, 90, 137, 138 - Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss 374, 418, 419 - Admissibility of admissions made to Police whilst in custody – Whether recorded police interview should be excluded from evidence on the basis that it was obtained improperly – Where police interview is conducted in another jurisdiction – Erroneous assumption by Police that different jurisdictional entitlements would apply - Failure to inform the accused of his entitlement to speak to a friend, relative or lawyer to try to arrange for them to be present during Police interview – Failure to delay Police interview to permit the accused to arrange for a lawyer to be present - Accused willing to proceed with interview without a lawyer present – Accused received legal advice and aware of right to silence – Admissions in recorded statement not found to have been obtained improperly – Accused lied to police and denied any involvement with death  of deceased during Police interview - Probative value and importance of recorded interview found to be considerable – Probative value of the recorded interview found not to be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused – Recorded police interview found to be admissible

EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act ss 90, 137 - Admissibility of recorded conversation between Police and accused where accused is unaware conversation is being recorded – No impropriety on the part of Police officers – No intention nor expectation that the accused would provide any information which might be admissible as evidence - Recording of interactions during transportation found to be standard practice – Probative value of recorded conversation not outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to the accused - Two portions of recorded conversations with the accused during transportation found to be admissible

EVIDENCE – Admissibility and relevance – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act ss 85, 90 137 - Consciousness of guilt evidence- Where post offending conduct includes setting fire to the body of the deceased, threatening eye witnesses and lying about involvement with the deceased’s death for a significant period of time - Whether evidence of post-offending conduct admissible as evidencing consciousness of guilt – Whether post-offence conduct admissible as an admission of murder as opposed to manslaughter – Post-offending conduct found to not be equally consistent with the offences of murder and manslaughter – Rational to rely on post-offending conduct to establish consciousness of guilt in respect of murder rather than manslaughter - For the jury to decide whether post-offence conduct evidences consciousness of guilt in respect of murder as opposed to manslaughter – Evidence for post-offending conduct found to be admissible to establish consciousness of guilt

Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; Nguyen v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 686; The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; The Queen v Downs [2019] NTSC 7; The Queen v Lisoff [1999] NSWCCA 364; The Queen v White [1998] 2 SCR 72, applied

Aravena v The Queen (2015) 91 NSWLR 258 ; BD v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 2; Cornwell v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 59; CV v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] VSCA 58; CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288; Derwish v The Queen [2016] VSCA 72; Director of Public Prosecutions v Roder (2024) 98 ALJR 644; Ebborn v The King [2025] NTCCA 2; Gale v Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 3; HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292; Kadir v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 109; Martin v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 38; Mole v Prior (2016) 36 NTLR 171; NAM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 95; Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 252 ALR 619; Police v Williams (2014) 246 A Crim R 317; Re Lee (2009) 212 A Crim R 442; RH v The Queen (2014) 241 A Crim R 1; TB v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 224; The King v Marcus [2025] NTSC 39; The Queen v AW [2018] NTSC 29; The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; The Queen v Ciantar [2006] 16 VR 26; The Queen v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442; The Queen v FE [2013] NSWSC 1692; The Queen v Grech [2017] NSWCCA 288; The Queen v Jennings [2020] NTSC 71; The Queen v Layt [2018] NTSC 36; The Queen v Visagie [2021] NTSC 73; Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd (2009) 258 ALR 598; Vagg v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 134, referred to

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 33A(1)

Criminal Code 1983 (NT) s 156

Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) ss 81, 85, 90, 97, 98, 101, 102, 137, 138

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss 374, 418, 419

Judicial college of Victoria, Criminal Charge Book

Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 19^th ed, 2020)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Crown:D Mandie with D Jones

Accused:M Aust SC with N Goodfellow

Solicitors:

Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused:Bryson Kelly

Judgment category classification:   B

Judgment ID Number:  Bro2513

Number of pages:   113      

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The King v Hunt [2025] NTSC 76
No. 22314625

BETWEEN:

THE KING

AND:

TIMOTHY HUNT

CORAM:    BROWNHILL J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 17 October 2025)

1. The accused is charged with the murder of Tony Rowe (‘deceased’). The parties sought pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of various evidence to be relied on by the Crown at trial.

2. The Crown sought to rely on coincidence evidence in the form of: (a) the evidence of the two witnesses present at the time of the deceased’s killing, Keith Waldock and Jazmine Shier, that, immediately after the accused had done so, the accused told them he had just cut the deceased’s throat; (b) the evidence of Keith Waldock that the accused had placed a sharp object against his throat and threatened him; (c) the evidence of an intercepted telephone conversation in which the accused told his mother that he would cut Jazmine Shier’s throat and put her in the boot too; and (d) the evidence of the recorded conversation during the transportation by police of the accused in which the accused said he had threatened to cut the throat of his ex-partner’s father. The Defence objected to this evidence on the basis that it did not have significant probative value and that the probative value of the proposed coincidence evidence did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

3. The Crown sought to rely on tendency evidence in the form of: (a) the evidence relating to the charged act which involved cutting the deceased’s throat with a Stanley knife; and (b) the evidence of Keith Waldock about the accused placing a sharp object against his throat and threatening him. The Defence objected to the admissibility of the proposed tendency evidence on the bases that the proposed tendency evidence did not have significant probative value and that the probative value of the proposed tendency evidence did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

4. The Crown sought to rely on things said by the accused during an interview with Northern Territory Police whilst he was in Queensland as admissions and lies evidencing consciousness of guilt. The Defence objected to the admissibility of any admissions or lies on the basis that the evidence was improperly obtained because the Northern Territory Police did not afford the accused the rights he was entitled to under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), the accused was not properly cautioned, did not understand his right to silence and consequently did not voluntarily participate in the interview with police. Further, the Defence argued that it would be unfair to the accused to permit the Crown to adduce the evidence and its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

5. The Crown sought to rely on two portions of a conversation between the accused and Queensland Police officers, recorded without the accused’s knowledge, as the Police transferred him from the prison to the Queensland Police Station where he was interviewed. One portion of the conversation is said to be a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt and the other is part of the coincidence evidence referred to above. The Defence objected to the admission of that evidence on the basis that it would be unfair to the accused to permit the Crown to adduce the evidence given that he was unaware that it was being recorded.

6. The Crown sought to rely on the above evidence and other evidence of lies by the accused and various other post-offence conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt and as lies going to the jury’s assessment of his credibility. The Defence objected to the admission of the evidence for these purposes on the basis that, at the voir dire, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter of the deceased, with the effect that the evidence is not probative of the facts in issue, arguing that the only fact in issue is whether the accused intended to kill or cause serious harm to the deceased.

7. On 31 July 2025, I ruled that the evidence sought to be relied on by the Crown was admissible, with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

   Charges

8. The accused is charged by an indictment dated 20 February 2025 with the murder of Tony Rowe, contrary to s 156 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) (‘Criminal Code’).

   Crown case

9. The Crown case is that the deceased and Keith Waldock (‘Waldock’) had known each other for about 12 years and were good mates. They were also related to each other in an Aboriginal way. Waldock and the deceased worked together on a commercial fishing boat. Waldock knew the deceased’s family well, including his sister, SR, and his mother, AL.

10. The accused met the deceased through the deceased’s sister, NR. The accused and the deceased had known each other for about six months prior to the alleged offending. They socialised together in the months leading up to the alleged offending. The accused had driven the deceased around as the deceased did not have a car.

11. Jazmine Shier (‘Shier’) was 20 years old at the time of the alleged offending. She had moved to the Northern Territory from Perth about eight months before the alleged offending occurred.

12. In around mid-May 2022, the deceased asked a friend to introduce him to someone who could supply him with cannabis. The deceased told that friend that he and a guy called ‘Tim’ were looking to sell the cannabis in an Aboriginal community.

13. On 24 May 2022, the accused and Shier began communicating on the Tinder online dating application, then on the SnapChat application. They met in person that night. The next day, they began communicating via text message and speaking on the phone. On 26 May 2022, they spent the night together at an Airbnb apartment.

14. On 27 May 2022, AL drove the deceased to Francis Bay to collect some things from a fishing boat and the deceased ran into Waldock there. AL drove them both back to her home. Waldock asked AL to drive him to Katherine to collect his car and AL reluctantly agreed. After they arrived at AL’s home, the accused arrived there in his car, a silver Ford Falcon (‘Ford’). Up to this point, the accused and Waldock did not know each other. AL joked that she wished the accused would drive the deceased and Waldock to Katherine to get Waldock’s car. The accused agreed. Before they left, the accused showed Waldock an axe he had, which he said he usually kept in the Ford, on the driver’s side of the car.  The accused left the axe and a number of other belongings from the Ford at AL’s home before departing for Katherine.

15. For some of the trip to Katherine, Waldock sat in the front passenger seat of the Ford. He noticed a number of box cutters lying in the centre console, including a grey Stanley knife. Upon arrival in Katherine, the accused dropped Waldock at his car which was at Waldock’s ex-partner’s home. Waldock drove his car back to Darwin. The deceased and the accused drove back to Darwin in the Ford.

16. When Waldock arrived in Darwin, he did not want to leave his car at his brother’s home. The accused suggested he park it at the residence where the accused was staying in Staghorn Court (‘Staghorn Court’), which was around the corner. Waldock agreed. He drove to Staghorn Court and parked his car. Three people lived at Staghorn Court: JM1, JM2 and HL.

17. The accused, the deceased and Waldock spent the rest of the day together, driving around Darwin in the Ford. Thereafter, the deceased was dropped off at AL’s home and Waldock and the accused returned to Staghorn Court. At around 4am, Waldock went to sleep in his car. The accused stayed at the Staghorn Court residence.

18. On 28 May 2022, at around 11am, the accused drove the Ford to AL’s home with Waldock where they collected the deceased. The accused also collected the axe he had left there the day before. Just after midday, the accused drove Waldock and the deceased to a bottle shop where they bought a carton of beer. They all then went to Rapid Creek and drank the beer. They spent the day together. The deceased and Waldock drank a lot of alcohol and became significantly intoxicated. At around 1.30pm, they drove in the Ford to a residence where SR was present. The deceased asked SR for some ‘weed’ for ‘Timmy’. The Police were at the same residence for an unrelated reason, so the accused, the deceased and Waldock drove away together. At around 3pm, the deceased called AL and told her he would be ‘going bush’ soon.

19. Between then and around 6.30pm, the accused, the deceased and Waldock drove to SR’s home. The deceased was drunk. He asked SR if she knew anyone who had lots of ‘marijuana’. She told him he does not even smoke and to go away, go to bed and stop drinking. When the accused got out of the Ford, the deceased yelled at him to get back in the car and not come into SR’s home. The deceased also twice telephoned the friend he had earlier asked about cannabis, but the calls went unanswered.

20. Later, the accused, Waldock and the deceased went to a shopping centre in Palmerston. The accused and the deceased had an argument which started to get physical. The accused claimed the deceased owed him $10,000. Waldock said he was hungry, so they drove to a Tavern in Leanyer (‘Tavern’).

21. At around 6.45pm, the accused called Shier and spoke to her for a few minutes.

22. At around 7.45pm, the accused dropped the deceased and Waldock off at the Tavern and left to pick up Shier. The deceased and Waldock were refused service at the Tavern because of their intoxication. They were ejected from the bar. The deceased went to the beer garden and spoke to other patrons. Waldock played on the poker machines, then went and waited out the front of the Tavern for the others. The accused returned in the Ford with Shier. Waldock met them in the car park and told them that he and the deceased had been refused entry to the Tavern. This was the first time Shier had met Waldock. Waldock said he was staying in the Ford to drink more beer. Waldock stood in the car park, smoking and drinking. The accused and Shier went into the Tavern and had a drink.

23. At around 8pm, the deceased was asked to leave the beer garden because of his intoxication. He was escorted through the bar area and saw the accused with Shier. This was the first time Shier had met the deceased. Security then asked the group to leave. The accused had the deceased’s phone and held it out towards him. The deceased snatched the phone from him. The accused and the deceased had a heated verbal argument after which the accused physically removed the deceased from the Tavern by pushing him outside. At some point, the accused again took the deceased’s phone from him. The accused pushed the deceased to the Ford in the car park, yelling and arguing. He pushed the deceased into the Ford and walked away. Waldock spoke with the deceased for some time then got into the Ford.

24. Just after 8pm, the accused returned to the Tavern and he and Shier finished their drinks. They exited the Tavern and walked to the Ford. The accused gave Shier his keys and told her to drive. He said they were going to his friend’s house. Shier got into the driver’s seat, the accused was in the front passenger seat and Waldock and the deceased were in the back seat. At around 8.20pm, they left the Tavern in the Ford.

25. The accused told Shier to drive from the car park, heading for Staghorn Court. As they drove, the deceased said to Shier that he thought he knew her from somewhere. The accused became defensive and told the deceased he did not know Shier and no one knew her because she was only new to the Northern Territory.

26. The accused and Waldock spoke about a trip they intended to make over the next couple of days to a community to sell cannabis, and about how the accused had wanted the deceased to organise the purchase of two kilograms of cannabis for that trip, but the accused had not done so. The accused said he should have dealt with SR instead of the deceased because SR was ‘higher up’. The accused demanded the passcode to the deceased’s phone. The deceased refused to provide the passcode, which agitated the accused. The accused said the deceased owed him between $7,000 and $10,000 for not organising the cannabis. The deceased was highly intoxicated. He opened a beer from the carton in the back seat. The accused turned around, knocked the beer from the deceased’s hand and hit him with his hand, leaning against Shier to do so. Shier asked if she should pull over. The accused told her to keep driving.

27. Shier drove the Ford to an area near the Thorak Cemetery. The accused and the deceased continued to argue about the passcode to the deceased’s phone and the money that the accused claimed the deceased owed to him. Waldock asked where they were and the accused said words to the effect of: ‘At the fucking cemetery, where this cunt should be’. They pulled over. Shier remained in the Ford. The accused and the deceased got out of the Ford, arguing and engaging in a physical scuffle. The accused continued to demand the passcode to the deceased’s phone. He pushed the deceased back inside the Ford.

28. The accused directed Shier to turn off the road they were on, pull into an area off the road and turn off the car. They were on a gravel area on the road going toward the cemetery, not far from the Campbell Road turnoff. They were at this location from around 8.30pm to 9.30pm.

29. Whilst still seated in the front passenger seat of the Ford, the accused turned around, grabbed the deceased and demanded the passcode to his phone. Waldock told the deceased they need the passcode now. The accused and Waldock got out of the Ford. The accused opened the rear door, grabbed the deceased by the ankles and pulled him out of the car, causing him to hit his head on the chassis below the open car door. The accused told Shier to stay in the Ford where she was.

1. The deceased was standing against the rear passenger side of the Ford. The accused and Waldock started punching and kicking the deceased to the head, chest and stomach, demanding the passcode to his phone so they could speak to SR. This assault continued for around 20 minutes, during which the accused and Waldock punched and kicked the deceased at least 40 times. Waldock hit the deceased more than once. The deceased had blood on his face, was holding his ribs and struggling to talk. The accused and Waldock told the deceased he owed them money, he had ruined ‘the whole run’ and people who were counting on them to do the run would be coming after them.

2. The accused walked to the driver’s side of the Ford, opened the driver’s door and picked up his axe from the floor space between the door and the driver’s seat. He returned to the deceased and started hitting the ground with the back of the axe, attempting to scare the deceased into providing the passcode to his phone. The accused did this about five times, screaming that the deceased owed him money and to give the passcode so SR could organise it.

3. The accused went back to the driver’s side of the Ford. He took a pair of wire cutters from the pocket in the driver’s door and used them to cut the deceased’s little toe off. The accused put his head through the front passenger door and told Shier he had cut the deceased’s toe off. The accused was laughing and said words to the effect of: ‘He took it like a man, he didn’t even flinch. He didn’t even make a noise.’

4. When the accused took out the wire cutters, Waldock became uncomfortable, looking like he did not want to be there. Toward the end of this period, Waldock walked off, looking shocked and like he was going to be sick. Waldock said to the accused: ‘Leave him alone, he’s had enough already’ and: ‘That’s enough, that’s enough, leave him. We will pick him up when he wakes up in the morning’.

5. The accused said that if anyone finds out that he cut the deceased’s toe off, SR would send people after him and he would be dead. The accused returned to the Ford and took a Stanley knife from the driver’s door. He went back to the deceased behind the Ford, picked him up and was standing over him, holding him in a headlock position. The accused used the Stanley knife to cut the deceased’s throat open. The deceased fell face first onto the ground and was not moving. The accused said to Waldock: ‘Get back in the fucking car. The debt’s been cleared. I’ve just cut the cunt’s throat’.

6. The accused went to the front passenger door, with the Stanley knife still in his hand, and told Shier he had cut the deceased’s throat and knew for a fact he had hit a main artery. The accused said: ‘It’s done, it’s done, we’re going’.

7. The accused got back into the front passenger seat of the Ford with the Stanley knife in his hand and told Shier he could still hear the deceased breathing but he was choking, ‘drowning on his own blood’, that the accused ‘knew for a fact’ that he had ‘hit a main artery’ and that the deceased ‘wouldn’t live for long’, he was dead.

8. The accused told Shier to start the Ford but then asked her to stop. The accused got out of the Ford and dragged the deceased’s body by the legs into the trees in the bushland nearby, then kicked dirt over the deceased’s blood and drag marks to hide the signs of what had happened.

9. Around the time the accused had cut the deceased’s throat, Waldock was ‘freaking out’ and had urinated himself. He also took a couple of steps kicking dirt over his urine and the blood on the ground. The accused and Waldock did this for about five minutes. The accused was also searching for the deceased’s toe.

10. The accused said to Waldock: ‘I’m not going to tell you again, get back in the fucking car’ and Waldock got back into the rear seat of the Ford on the passenger side. The accused got into the front passenger seat and told Shier to drive, directing her to Staghorn Court.

11. As they were half-way down the road, the accused turned around to Waldock in the back seat, put the blade of a sharp object (an axe or a Stanley knife) hard up against Waldock’s throat and said that if he ever goes to ‘the coppers’ or says anything to anyone about this, the accused would go to Katherine and kill Waldock’s partner and father-in-law. The accused said: ‘You saw what I just done to [the deceased]. Don’t make me go to Katherine and do your family’ or ‘...do your partner and father-in-law’. The accused also said that if SR found out what had happened there would be trouble.

12. At around 9.35pm, the accused, Waldock and Shier drove to Staghorn Court. They were silent.

13. They arrived at Staghorn Court at around 9.45pm. While still in the Ford, the accused and Waldock talked about taking the deceased’s body on a fishing trip and using him as ‘croc bait’. The accused said he was going to chop him up but his axe would not be sharp enough.

14. When they arrived at Staghorn Court, JM1, JM2 and HL were present. The accused met JM1 at the residence’s door and when she asked what happened, the accused told her they had hit a kangaroo. The accused asked JM1 for a tarp and opened the boot of the Ford. Everyone went inside. Shier was given a joint to smoke.

15. Everyone else went into the back room of the residence and started moving things around. The accused took everything from the boot of the Ford into the back room. The accused took his axe into the house and filled up the bath. He asked JM1 if she had any chemical cleaner, and she said she did not. The accused used laundry liquid or something similar and soaked the axe in the bath. He used his multi-tool knife to peel layers off the handle of the axe. He told Shier that he was trying to wash blood off the handle as it was visible. He also washed his arms.

16. The accused had the deceased’s phone with him. He asked HL if he could unlock and clear it so they could sell it. When HL saw that it was an iPhone, he told the accused it could be tracked and to ‘get rid of it’. The accused snapped the deceased’s phone and smashed the screen, destroying it. The last time the deceased’s phone connected to the phone service was at 9.43pm in the Woodroffe area.

17. Waldock was keen to leave Staghorn Court and stayed about 20 minutes. He had collected his things from the Ford. The accused and Shier walked to the Ford and Waldock was standing there too. The accused told Waldock to remember what he had just done to the deceased and threatened him again, saying words to the effect of: ‘Don’t make me come looking for you or your family’ and: ‘If you go to the coppers, or anyone, I’ll do your family’. Waldock was panicking, pacing, fidgeting and breathing fast, saying he was worried about his wife and kids. The accused was calm, assuring Waldock this would not fall on him.

18. At around 10.08pm, Waldock got into his car and left Staghorn Court. He drove around the corner to his brother’s house. He parked there and slept briefly, leaving at around 1.30am with his cousin-sister, to drive to the fishing boat. Waldock left Darwin on the fishing boat at around 9-10am the following morning. The boat’s shore manager asked Waldock where the deceased was. Waldock told him he had left the deceased with his mate Tim. Waldock said this because he was afraid of the accused and of the threats the accused had made.

19. The accused and Shier remained at Staghorn Court. The accused told Shier to stay in the back room. She fell asleep for a period then began to say she wanted to go home.

20. JM1 gave the accused a large tent with no poles in response to his request for a tarp. The accused laid that tent in the empty boot of the Ford. The accused told Shier they had to go. He got into the driver’s seat of the Ford, with Shier in the passenger seat. They left Staghorn Court at speed at around 11.45pm.

21. The accused drove back to the location of the deceased’s body. As he drove, he was looking all around for Police. He drove past the spot a few times first, talking to Shier about drones. He told Shier to sit in the Ford and stay there because she did not need to ‘see this’.

22. The accused dragged the deceased’s body from the trees. He searched for the deceased’s toe but could not find it. He gave up saying: ‘The dogs will take care of him’.

23. The accused wrapped the deceased’s body in the tent material and put it into the boot of the car. He then got into the driver’s seat and began driving away at speed. Around this time, the accused asked Shier where his phone was as he could not find it. He used Shier’s phone to make numerous calls to his phone to locate it. He drove back to the original location trying to find it. Ultimately, he found it in the back seat of the Ford. Mobile phone data locates the accused and Shier in this vicinity from around 12.30am until 2.00am.

24. The accused drove to Weddell. Along the way, the accused stopped near some tracks and threw the deceased’s snapped phone away.

25. The accused told Shier he had to burn the body. He stopped the car, took out a jerry can, some pieces of clothing and five small bottles from the back seat of the Ford. He filled the bottles with petrol that he syphoned from the Ford’s fuel tank. The accused put the jerry can and the bottles onto the back seat of the Ford and kept driving. At a railway crossing, the accused turned off and drove along the railway track for some time before stopping. He stopped at the bushiest tree he could find.

26. The accused got out and tried to open the boot. He could not open it and broke the latch on the boot by pulling it off to get the boot open. He dragged the deceased’s body from the boot, still wrapped in the tent, and over to the tree. He told Shier to get the bottles from the Ford. He poured petrol onto the tent, lit a cigarette, had a couple of puffs and then put it into the deceased’s mouth. He said he was going to give the deceased ‘one last smoke’, but the cigarette went out.

27. The accused took some paper rubbish from the Ford, lit it on fire and told Shier to start the Ford. She reached over from the passenger seat and did so. The accused threw the lit material and ran to the Ford, got in the driver’s seat and started reversing. There was a loud ‘bang’ and the tree next to the deceased’s body caught on fire. The accused started laughing.

28. Shier told the accused that she wanted to go home. The accused told her she could not and he would drop her off in the morning. She was terrified of him.

29. The accused drove back to Staghorn Court along back roads, arriving around 4am. On the drive back, the accused said to Shier words to the effect of: ‘You can’t leave me now, you can’t tell anyone about this.’

30. When they got back to Staghorn Court, HL and JM1 were there. At first, JM1 did not want to open the door, but the accused told her words to the effect of: ‘It’s sorted’ and she let them in. The accused kept both his and Shier’s phones. Shier was left alone in the lounge room and fell asleep. The accused later woke her up, saying he was going to bed and would take her home in the morning.

31. When Shier woke up in the morning, she asked the accused a number of times if she could go home. He said she could not go yet as they had to ‘do some stuff’. Hours passed. JM1 and HL later left Staghorn Court.

32. The accused moved the Ford into the driveway, opened the boot and took out everything that was inside, including the carpet, the spare wheel and a piece of wood. He washed the inside of the Ford, using the hose to try and get the deceased’s blood out of the boot lining. A lot of blood had collected in the bottom of the boot in the wheel well. The accused was laughing and telling Shier about how he had the deceased in the boot. The accused said he needed to get the blood out of the Ford, to give it a really good clean, because it was easily recognisable. When the water going down the driveway turned red with blood, the accused moved the Ford onto the grass to clean it there. The accused removed the obvious signs of blood from the Ford and was angry that the tent used to line the boot and carry the body had not prevented the blood from seeping through into the carpet and the spare wheel well.

33. At some point, the accused broke the spoiler from the Ford, either when he was at Staghorn Court or when he was trying to get the deceased’s body out of the Ford. The accused gave up on cleaning the carpet and rolled it up and threw it and the spoiler against a fence at Staghorn Court. CCTV footage from the Tavern on 28 May 2022 shows the Ford with the spoiler on it, but CCTV footage from the Palmerston area at 8.18am on 29 May 2022 shows the Ford without a spoiler.

34. Later that day, the accused and Shier left Staghorn Court supposedly to take Shier home. After they left, the accused said they needed to go to Bunnings. They arrived at Bunnings around 4pm. Both the accused and Shier walked through Bunnings together. The accused asked Shier: ‘What gets rid of blood?’ and she replied that she did not know. They took two bottles of bleach and two bottles of acetone to the checkout. The accused told Shier he had no money but would be paid next week. Shier paid for the bottles. They then drove back to Staghorn Court.

35. The accused then scrubbed the Ford with the bleach, acetone, a hose and a scrubbing brush, focussing on the boot area. He said to Shier: ‘[The deceased] was a bleeder’. This took around 20 minutes.

36. After cleaning the car, the accused drove Shier to her home. He told her to ‘watch’ herself, that ‘people aren’t hard to find’, that he knew she had ‘no one up here’, that he was part of a ‘bikie gang’ and knew where she lived and worked. Shier went into her room and cried.

37. On 30 May 2022, at around 2pm, AL called the accused and asked him where the deceased was. She had called the deceased a number of times and had no answer. The accused told AL that the deceased had run off into the bush in Palmerston. AL thought the accused sounded panicky and scared. AL then reported to Police that the deceased was missing. The accused and AL had three conversations in which he told her that the deceased had left the Ford at three different places.

38. In the days that followed, the accused called and messaged Shier numerous times, telling her to go back to work and keep doing whatever she was doing. When Shier left work, the accused called her or was there or was at her house or telling her to meet him somewhere. Shier interpreted this as the accused trying to prove she could not get away from him, he was watching her and she had to do whatever he said. The accused threatened Shier, telling her he knew where she lived and worked, that she had no car to get around, that he was a bikie and was from Darwin. Shier feared he knew bikies and would send them around to visit her.

39. On 30 May 2022, the accused picked Shier up after work and took her to the beach. They went to wash the car at a car wash and the accused yelled at Shier that she had missed spots.

40. On or around 30 May 2022, the accused conducted a Google search on his phone for ‘what happens when an animal dies at the zoo’.

41. On 31 May 2022, the accused called Shier and told her he was coming to pick her up, she needed to jump in the Ford quickly and not ask any questions. She did as he said. He told her they were going to Tennant Creek for his work and he would give her the Ford to return in. That evening, the accused and Shier met up with JM1 and HL at a caravan car park and collected some of the accused’s belongings from them.

42. At around 10.30pm, the accused and Shier stopped in Berry Springs, at the residence of an associate of the accused, AD. The accused had previously stored some of his belongings at AD’s property. Earlier that day, AD had received messages from the accused’s former partner asking for some of her belongings. AD had forwarded those messages to the accused and the accused had said he would collect the items that afternoon.

43. At AD’s property, the accused asked AD how to get rid of blood. The accused and AD joked about moving the body and burying him on AD’s large property. The accused told AD that he was leaving the Northern Territory, was going to take the Ford to the beach and burn it, but then he would not have a car, he could leave the keys in the Ford and hope it would be picked up by locals and burnt or he could burn the back of the Ford and hope someone takes it and crashes it. The accused did not want to do this as the Ford was the only thing he owned, but burning the Ford was the only way, because if Police got the Ford, he was guaranteed to get charged.

44. The accused opened the boot of the Ford and AD saw that it was empty, the carpet lining and spare tyre had been removed and the boot had been freshly cleaned. The accused told AD that he had someone in there and he is not far from here, he needed to make the Ford disappear, and asked if he could leave the Ford on the property and how to get rid of blood. The accused told AD that when Shier was in the Ford, someone was being a smart ass and was in the back seat so the accused had leant over and ‘done something’. The accused said that someone had been reported missing by the missing person’s mother. The accused said no one would know if the missing person was actually missing because it would be two weeks until the boat returned. AD asked where the person he had ‘bashed’ was and the accused said ‘around here’ and changed the subject.

45. On 31 May 2022, AL was told by her friend, who had been at the Tavern on 28 May 2022, that he had seen the deceased, the accused and others at the Tavern the same evening.. AL called the accused and told him she knew that they had been at the Tavern. The accused told AL that he had ‘bought a whore’ and the boys were in the Tavern while he ‘rooted’ her. He said he never went inside the Tavern. He said that after leaving the Tavern with the deceased and Waldock, they drove towards Palmerston and dropped Waldock off somewhere. The deceased had argued with someone on the phone and then ran away on foot somewhere near the Palmerston Hospital, but he did not know exactly where.

46. On 1 June 2022, during the drive of the accused and Shier to Tennant Creek, the accused yelled at Shier to cover the Ford with a sheet so it would not be recognised in Katherine, to stay in the Ford as he fuelled it up, and to get back in the Ford at a service station because they were being followed. When Shier said she wanted to go back to work, the accused said she was trying to abandon him, he told her to grab her ‘shit’ and ‘fuck off’. She got into the Ford and started driving. The accused threw his pocket knife at her in the Ford. The accused got into another car, telling the driver that his Ford had been stolen. He chased Shier and sent her a text saying: ‘I am behind you ... pull over please’. When Shier pulled over and the other driver left, the accused grabbed Shier by the throat and yelled at her, emptied out the boot, sat in the front seat and smashed the Ford’s front window with his fist.

47. During the drive to Tennant Creek, the accused behaved erratically. He yelled at Shier that she and her father ‘were next’. He carried his axe and took it into their accommodation, putting it in a pillow.

48. When they arrived at a hotel in Tennant Creek, the accused told Shier to stay in the room and that women cannot be trusted. When Shier said she needed to go home, the accused lost his temper again.

49. The accused met a truck driver in connection with his work. He told Shier to drive the Ford back to Darwin. On 3 June 2022, the accused sent Shier a message saying that he gave full ownership of the Ford to her. Shier drove the Ford straight home, arriving on 5 June 2022. She parked the Ford outside her residence. On the drive back, the accused called her repeatedly.

50. Once at home, Shier told her housemate that she had returned from Tennant Creek. Shier received a phone call and told her housemate the call was from ‘Tim’s aunty’, telling her he had been arrested and to remove the numberplates from the Ford, which she did.

51. After Shier left Tennant Creek, the accused collected a truck and drove to Queensland.

1. On 3 June 2022, after viewing CCTV footage of the accused, the deceased, Waldock and Shier at the Tavern, a Police officer (‘Trease’) called the accused. The accused admitted he had been at the Tavern with the deceased and Waldock, but said that after leaving the Tavern, they went to the Gateway area on the Stuart Highway, then pulled up near Howard Springs or Coolalinga where the deceased and Waldock got out of the Ford and only Waldock returned. He said they went to the accused’s sister’s house in Moulden and Waldock left as soon as they arrived.

2. Trease asked about the unidentified female from the Tavern. The accused said she was a ‘Tinder root’, he did not know her name, and they were no longer matched on Tinder with the consequence that the name disappears.

3. The accused agreed to make a formal statement with Queensland Police about the matter when he arrived.

4. Northern Territory Police arranged for Queensland Police to take the accused’s statement in Mt Isa.

5. On 4 June 2022, the accused was arrested by Queensland Police on unrelated matters. At the time of his arrest, Police seized an axe matching the description given by Shier from the truck in which the accused had been travelling.

6. On 4 June 2022, at the watchhouse, the accused had a recorded conversation with Police during which he admitted that: (a) he knew the deceased and they were close, although he had not known him for long; (b) the deceased was thrown out of the Tavern for being drunk and the accused had put him in the Ford with Waldock; (c) the accused had been trying to have a drink with a female at the Tavern; (iv) they all left the Tavern together; and (v) the accused and the deceased were trying to buy some ‘weed’ to sell but had not managed to obtain it.

7. The accused also said that: (a) he did know a 20 year old woman who was originally from Perth named ‘Jazz’ who he had seen a few times, but he did not know the female he was with at the Tavern on 28 May 2022, she was just ‘some bitch off Tinder’, he had never seen her before or since, they were unmatched on Tinder so the contact was gone, he could not even remember what that female looked like, she was ‘just some Tinder hookup from Darwin’; (b) he did not know what had happened to the deceased, who knows some ‘shady people’, his sister is a ‘bikie’, and they were threatening the accused about the deceased being missing or getting hurt; (c) the last time he saw the deceased was that night when they pulled up on the side of the Stuart Highway between Howard Springs and Coolalinga, and he had dropped Waldock off at his car at his sister’s house and maybe Waldock picked the deceased up; (d) the deceased had been depressed and crying that night because his wife had left him and people were saying he had killed himself; (e) the deceased had just disappeared into the bush, he walks off like that when he is ‘pissed’; (f) AL told the accused that the deceased had been talking to someone from a Parap pub, the deceased had been calling someone and getting really worried and anxious, which is why the deceased and the group got drunk that night; (g) the female from the Tavern drove the Ford up the road to a bus stop near the pools, got out and walked across the road, that was the last time he had seen her and he does not know where she lives; (h) the deceased got out of the car and disappeared into the bush; and (i) by repeatedly asking where the deceased was, impliedly said that he did not know.

8. On 5 June 2022, the accused gave a written statement to Queensland Police in which he repeated the admissions and lies told to Police on 4 June 2022.

9. On 6 June 2022, Police located the Ford outside Shier’s residence. They published a media release showing an image of the female depicted on the CCTV footage from the Tavern seeking to identify her. Shier contacted Police to ask that her image be taken down. On 7 June 2022, Shier identified herself to Police as the female in the image. Shier gave statements to Police but was too afraid of the accused and Waldock to disclose what she had witnessed. She was also afraid that they would seek to implicate her. She did inform Police about Staghorn Court. With her consent, Police conducted an initial search of the Ford.

10. On 8 June 2022, with the consent of Shier, Police seized the Ford. It later underwent forensic examination. Shier led Police to Staghorn Court as the location she, the deceased, the accused and Waldock had gone on 28 May 2022. Shier informed Police that the accused had threatened her and that she was in fear for her safety. Police went to Staghorn Court and located the spoiler from the Ford, as well as the empty bottles of acetone and bleach which were seized with the consent of the residents.

11. On 9 June 2022, Police executed a search warrant at Staghorn Court.

12. On 10 June 2022, forensic testing of stains in the spare wheel well in the boot of the Ford tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood.

13. On 11 June 2022, Shier provided Police with her phone, which underwent digital forensic examination. Police provided Shier with an audio recording device to record phone conversations between herself and the accused.

14. On 13 June 2022, forensic testing of the middle seat on the left side of the Ford tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood. A sample from a tape lift from the middle seat was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing of this sample returned a mixed DNA profile from the accused and the deceased. The rear passenger seat on the left side tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood. A tape lift from the rear left passenger seat was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing of this sample returned a mixed DNA profile from the accused and the deceased.

15. On 15 June 2022, Shier and the accused had a phone conversation which she recorded. The accused said that he was going to have to buy her a new phone, her phone would have to be smashed very soon because she had it on her when they ‘went for a drive’ and her ‘location says everything’. He told her that if anyone tried to take her phone, she should smash it and the worst she would get is a charge for destruction of evidence, he would pay the fine and that was ‘better than the alternative’.

16. On 16 June 2022, Shier informed Police she was departing Darwin for Perth as she had pre-booked flights. She was escorted to the airport by Police and went to Perth.

17. On 19 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Shier was not talking to him anymore, they had ‘shared history’, it was ‘what we’ve done’, which was nothing to do with ‘rooting’, ‘it’s old mate’.

18. On 20 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Shier was not talking to him, he had not heard from her all day, so: ‘Fuck the little dog. I’ll go up there and cut her throat and put her in the boot too’.

19. On 22 June 2022, the swab from the stain in the spare wheel well of the Ford was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing returned a DNA profile from the deceased.

20. On 22 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said he had been calling and messaging Shier repeatedly and was receiving no reply. He said he wanted the Ford back and would go to her house in Darwin and get it.

21. Later that day, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said Shier would not talk to him and said he would ‘bash’ her.

22. On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said Shier was not talking to him, ‘just being a dog’, he had not heard from her and might call her at work.

23. On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with a female associate which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. She said she thought the phone was ‘tapped’, he said it is ‘tapped’ and he would have to get a new one, she said Police would be contacting everyone he contacted that night and if they came to her, she had removed all of their conversations and would hide her phone and pretend she does not have one, and he said the Police have his phone and his car.

24. On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, JM, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Police had his car, ‘that girl’ had given it to them, the phone was ‘bugged’, and he had pulled the battery out of his phone but hung onto it. JM said that when he took the battery out of his phone, that would show his last location. The accused said he had bought another phone with a VPN location set to Perth, and he was going to set it to America.

25. On 25 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, WF, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that there was a good chance his phone was ‘bugged ... cos of old mate going missing’.

26. On 26 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with JM which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he thought Shier had ‘buckled’, he had told her ‘stick with me ... you’ll be right; go against me and you’re fucked’. JM said he was told Shier’s image had been taken down. The accused said he would Google that because if it had been taken down then she was cooperating with them.

27. On 1 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, TL, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that his phone was bugged, he would look for a payphone, that ‘we’ were ‘on the piss’ and his mate walked off into the bush and has not been seen since and now it was a murder investigation.

28. On 3 July 2022, Shier had a phone conversation with her father which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. Shier described her fear of the accused and panic attacks triggered by knowing the accused was not in custody and Police did not know where he was. She said when the accused told her he was on his way to Darwin she almost passed out.

29. On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with JM1 which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said: ‘don’t talk too much on this phone’, the phone was bugged, Shier would not talk to him and she gave the Ford to Police.

30. On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, RT, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he had bought the Ford from bikies in Tasmania and hoped they did not do anything ‘sketchy’ in it, like hurt anybody or put anyone in the boot or bashed anyone in it and apart from that, he was not worried. Police traced the previous owner of the Ford, which the accused had purchased in Tasmania, who did not have any association with a bikie gang or criminal activity.

31. On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with a Police officer (‘Humphries’) which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said that he bought the Ford from bikies, that the deceased had said he was going to Europe to get a European woman, that the deceased had said he was going back on the boat but then was not doing that because of some ‘Kiwi’ that worked on the boat.

32. On 21 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his ex-partner, LR, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that his phones are ‘hot’, he is under investigation for murder. LR said she did not say anything about that and would not, and the accused cut her off and said he did not know what she was on about and told her to ‘shut the fuck up’.

33. On 22 September 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, with LR speaking in the background, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. To LR, the accused said ‘I am cutting your fucking stepdad’s throat’.

34. On 23 September 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with KT which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he had the feeling the Police want him ‘away for a while’, and they had something on him somewhere. KT said it was to do ‘with that car situation’. The accused said: ‘yeah that fucking other car’, ‘that fucking blue car’. KT said the police had something from that car and the accused agreed. KT said she told the accused to burn it or get rid of it in general and the accused agreed.

35. On 14 October 2022, Shier had a phone conversation with her friend, DD, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. Shier said she was an anxious person since ‘that Darwin thing’ which had just ‘fucked me’, she was still having nightmares about it and wakes up to noises, gets anxious and panics about phone calls, worried ‘if that’s him’, every time she thinks she is over it, something else comes up, no one wants to know the truth, various things would trigger her, they had not found the deceased and she did not know where he was, but what if he is found and it all ‘backfires on me’, she was terrified she would wake up with Police at the door and she would be locked up, she was worried about being framed, if ‘he’ had something to do with his mate disappearing, what would he have done to her, a person he did not even know, she could have been murdered and ended up in the boot of ‘his’ car and no one would have known.

36. On 29 March 2023, the accused was transported from a correctional centre in Queensland to the Rockhampton Police Station for an interview with Northern Territory Police. Two Queensland Police officers (‘Clark’ and ‘Stanborough’) escorted the accused. Clark covertly recorded their conversation with the accused. During the journey, the accused referred to issues with his former partner which led to her father threatening to cut the accused’s throat, and the accused said: ‘I will cut your throat you maggot before I get my throat cut’. The accused also said he was the last person to see the deceased. He also said he was still holding out hopes that the deceased was ‘holed up somewhere with some sheila’ or something.

37. On 29 March 2023, the accused participated in a recorded interview with Northern Territory Police at the Rockhampton Police Station. During the interview:

    (a)The accused denied that he knew Shier, saying he could not remember her name, the ‘bird’ he picked up lived locally, she did not attend Staghorn Court after the Tavern on 28 May 2022 and he had no continued contact with her. When he was told that the Ford was handed to Police by Shier, and asked what he could tell Police about her, he said: ‘Nothing’.

    (b)The accused said that after leaving the Tavern, he pulled up on the Stuart Highway at Humpty Doo or Howard Springs for a ‘piss’, after which the deceased walked off and did not come back out of the bush. At this time there was only himself, the deceased and Waldock in the Ford. After the deceased walked off, he assumed Waldock was going to pick the deceased up.

    (c)The accused said he went to AD’s property on the way to Tennant Creek with someone that the accused had arranged to take the Ford back to Darwin. Referred to AD saying the boot liner of the Ford was not there and the boot was clean, the accused said it was clean because he had to put LR’s ‘shit’ in there. Earlier in the interview, he had said he had thrown some of LR’s things out the window and indicated animosity towards LR.

    (d)The accused admitted that: (i) on 28 May 2022, he was drinking with the deceased and Waldock at various pubs; (ii) they were trying to buy ‘weed’ which he and the deceased wanted to sell ‘out bush’ and smoke; (iii) he owned the Ford then held by Police and when shown photos of the Ford said there should be a spoiler on it, but it might have fallen off; (iv) he had been friends with the deceased for around six months; (v) the deceased drank a lot, gets arrogant and disappears; (vi) on 28 May 2022, he was with a female at the Tavern with Waldock and the deceased; (vii) he parked the Ford in the car park at the Tavern, which then had the spoiler on it; (viii) the deceased was being rude, agitated, ‘going off’ and ‘blind drunk’, they were all ‘pretty fucking pissed’; (ix) the deceased got evicted by bar staff and the accused removed him from the venue, pushing him outside; (x) after leaving the Tavern, the female drove the Ford, with the accused, the deceased and Waldock in the passenger seats; (xi) his phone was a Samsung and he had an application on it called ‘Who Touched My Phone’ which took photos when someone unlocked the phone; (xii) he ‘should have’ had his phone on him the night the deceased disappeared; (xiii) he knew AD, who had set up a job for him in Queensland after the deceased’s disappearance; and (xiv) he drove to Tennant Creek in the Ford and someone else drove it back to Darwin.

    (e)The accused told Police that he did not have any real memory as to what happened after leaving the Tavern, he was not sure if he went to the Noonamah area on that night. Asked what he did on 29 May 2022, he said he did not know, he probably slept. He did not recall going to Staghorn Court.

    (f)The accused recalled a conversation with AL in which she told him to look for the deceased, but he did not know where to look.

    (g)The accused explained the recorded conversation with Shier referred to in paragraph [95] above by saying hers was an iPhone and he was a lifetime Samsung user.

    (h)Asked about cleaning the Ford, the accused said he washed it at the car wash after going to the beach. Asked if he cleaned it any other time or at any other locations, he said he did not know. The accused said he was not sure if he went to Bunnings on 29 May 2022 and purchased acetone and bleach and could not recall doing so.

    (i)When told Shier had told Police she was with him when they went to Staghorn Court, the accused said he was genuinely not sure, confused and did not know.

    (j)The accused explained the recorded conversation with his mother referred to in paragraph [98] above by saying that comment was taken out of context, and it was ‘just a twisted sense of humour’.

    (k)Told that blood found in the wheel well and on the back seat of the Ford matched with the deceased’s DNA, the accused said he could not understand the result in the wheel well but was not surprised about the back seat because the deceased had an injury to his hand or foot and was always lying down in the back seat of the Ford.

    (l)The accused did not know why he had undertaken the Google search referred to in paragraph [69] above, said he is a ‘curious person’ and that he did not remember Googling that.

38. On 29 March 2023, immediately after the formal recorded interview, the accused told Police that he had expected the Police to talk more about Waldock but there was no mention of him, which was frustrating and suspicious.

39. On 29 March 2023, the accused was transported back to the correctional centre by Clark and Stanborough. Clark covertly recorded their conversation, during which the accused said there were three of them confirmed to be the last to be with the deceased, but only two of them had been mentioned and the other person had been left out of it, AL had told the accused he did not sound guilty because he still talked to her, whereas Waldock did not talk to anyone, visit or check in with the family, and that was the ‘fella’ that had not been mentioned at all.

40. On 29 March 2023, the accused called LR from the correctional centre, which was lawfully recorded.  The accused discussed the Police interview and told LR that he had not been charged yet, discussed the evidence shown to him, and said he was trying to work out why Police found the deceased’s blood in the boot of the Ford.

41. Later that day, the accused called LR again and discussed the interview further, denying he did anything. He said Police were looking at him and Shier as having ‘done it’ and said he told Police that they had it all wrong and they should investigate properly. When LR said: ‘instead of investigating the wrong people’, the accused said that they were not really because he was the last to be seen with the deceased, so they are looking at the right people in a way, that he is not the wrong person to look at because it ‘looks bad, ugly’. He said he was part of it because the deceased was out drinking with them.

1. Later that day, the accused called LR again and said that at some point there had been carpet lining the boot of the Ford, but it had disappeared.

2. On 10 May 2023, a warrant was issued for the accused’s arrest. He was arrested in Queensland by Clark, who recorded the arrest on a voice recorder. The accused said that he had not done this, they have the wrong person, it was Waldock, and he, the accused, did not do anything.

3. On 17 May 2023, the accused was extradited to the Northern Territory on a flight accompanied by Police officers (‘Hutchinson’ and ‘Wheeler’). Hutchinson recorded their conversations and told the accused that she was doing so. During the conversations:

   (a)The accused told Hutchinson to speak to Waldock, and said he does not trust Waldock.

   (b)The accused said he had a bit of a scuffle with the deceased at a shopping centre near Landmark, had bought him a dummy because he was ‘a bit of a sook’, the deceased had ‘just flipped’, they had ended up with their shirts off and the deceased kept getting mad at the accused because he would not take the dummy out of his mouth.

   (c)The accused said he was trying to get ‘weed’ with the deceased from a ‘shady guy’ from the boat.

   (d)The accused said the ‘main’ evidence was blood in the boot of the Ford and he had the deceased climb in the boot in the past, and it did not surprise him that there was possibly blood as the deceased had cut himself, it does not take much to bleed, the deceased was always drunk and you bleed more when you are drunk. When Hutchinson mentioned the deceased’s DNA, the accused said the deceased had an injury on his hand, wrist or ankle and asked if it was a drop or a bucket, and it would have to be substantial.

   (e)The accused said Police seem pretty confident the deceased is deceased, Hutchinson agreed, and the accused said he thought so too.

   (f)The accused asked Hutchinson what Shier was charged with and asked what if Shier threw the accused under the bus without him having the opportunity to throw someone under the bus. He admitted he lied about dropping Shier home.

   (g)The accused denied using bleach to clean the Ford but said he had used acetone to clean ‘bat shit’ off the car and used it inside the Ford to remove the residue from a sticker.

   (h)The accused said AD could not have seen inside the boot of the Ford to say there was no carpet in it because there were no lights there and he would have seen there was never carpet in the boot. He wondered why AD would have thrown him under a bus, possibly because of a run in they had had.

   (i)The accused referred to the phone conversation between him and his mother about Shier referred to at paragraph [97] above, saying it was just a ‘sick sense of humour’ and his mother watches crime shows and he tries to say disturbing things to keep her on her toes.

   (j)The accused said he told Shier to smash her phone to cover up his throwing of LR’s property onto the Stuart Highway.

   (k)The accused said Police should be looking at Waldock.

4. During the flight, Wheeler heard the accused tell Hutchinson that he did not want the bleach, ‘she did’ and, in relation to acetone, that red dirt gets stuck under the polish and he cleaned ‘bat shit’ off the Ford and to take raised lettering off it.

5. Between 19 September 2022 and 7 March 2023, various searches were conducted for the deceased’s body by Police. The searches were unsuccessful.

6. On 20 May 2023, Waldock had a series of phone conversations with his former partner, SC, which were lawfully intercepted and recorded. They discussed the deceased and SC urged Waldock to tell Police or threatened to tell Police herself about Waldock seeing what had happened to the deceased. Waldock said he does not know the owner or driver of the Ford, but he is the deceased’s good mate. Waldock denied knowing anything to SC, did not want to discuss it on the phone and asked why SC was making trouble for him. This occurred after SC was visited by Police.

7. On 26 May 2023, Shier was arrested and extradited to the Northern Territory from Western Australia.

8. On 26 May 2023, Shier gave a detailed statement to Police about the matter. Shier directed Police to where she said the deceased’s body was left. She was in clear distress. At that location, Police found human bones scattered across a wide area. A crime scene was declared. On 27 May 2023, forensics officers attended and the human bones were collected, as were pieces of burnt fabric and clothing. An autopsy later found that 86% of the skeleton was present, including the skull. There were skeletal defects in the cranium, jaw, two ribs and the right arm, showing characteristics of peri-mortem blunt force trauma. The skull showed trauma from three impacts and the fracture to the forearm had the appearance of self-defence type injuries. DNA samples from the human bones matched the deceased.

9. On 30 May 2023, Shier directed Police to the location of the murder, adjacent to the Robertson Barracks in Holtze on the road towards the Thorak Cemetery.

10. On 2 June 2023, Police executed another search warrant at Staghorn Court and seized various items, including tent poles located without the tent. On 5 June 2023, the Ford was searched and a tool kit missing a pair of pliers was located.

11. On 7 June 2023, Waldock was arrested.

12. On 16 June 2023, Shier returned to Western Australia.

13. On 4 March 2024, Waldock had a phone conversation with his brother that was recorded on the prison telephone system. Waldock said he knew what really happened that night and if anyone listened to his story he would be released. He said he was fearing for his own life and other lives from knowing what he knows, and yet he was in there with the murderer. He said ‘the girl’ was out because she is a liar. Waldock said he had his reasons why he did not talk, no one knows how he felt, everything he said was the truth from the start ‘just parts left out because of fear’.

    Defence case

14. At the voir dire, the accused pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter.

    Proposed coincidence evidence

15. The Crown filed a notice of its intention to adduce the following evidence as coincidence evidence:

    (a)Evidence of Waldock that he saw the accused holding the deceased in a headlock, then saw the deceased fall to the ground face first, and heard the accused say words to the effect of: ‘Get in the fucking car. The debt’s been cleared. I just cut the cunt’s throat’.

    (b)Evidence of Shier that she saw the accused get into the front passenger seat of the Ford, holding a Stanley knife, and heard the accused say words to the effect that he could still hear the deceased breathing, but he was choking, drowning in his own blood, that he knew for a fact he had hit a main artery, and that the deceased would not live for long, he was dead.

    (c)Evidence of Waldock that, immediately after the killing, when Shier was driving the Ford away from the scene, the accused placed a sharp object, being the blade of an axe or possibly a Stanley knife, hard up against Waldock’s throat and threatened him, SC and her father.

    (d)The phone conversation referred to in paragraph [98] above, in which the accused said to his mother that Shier was not talking to him, so: ‘Fuck the little dog. I’ll go up there and cut her throat and put her in the boot too’.

    (e)The recorded conversation referred to in paragraph [116] above, in which the accused said to Flynn about LR’ss father that he had said: ‘I will cut your throat you maggot before I get my throat cut’.

16. The fact in issue to which the proposed coincidence evidence relates is whether the accused caused the death of the deceased by intentionally cutting his throat.

    The requirements for admission of coincidence evidence

17. Section 98(1) of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (‘Evidence Act’) provides that evidence that two or more events occurred is not admissible to prove that a person did a particular act or had a particular state of mind on the basis that, having regard to any similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they occurred, or both, it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally unless: (a) the party seeking to adduce the evidence gave reasonable notice of its intention to do so; and (b) the court thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence, have significant probative value.

18. No issue is taken by the Defence with the Crown’s coincidence notice.

19. It has been accepted that the same analysis in assessing the probative value of tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act applies to the requirement for significant probative value in relation to coincidence evidence in s 98.[1] ‘Probative value’ means the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.[2]

20. Like tendency evidence, coincidence evidence will have significant probative value if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue to a significant extent.[3] A ‘significant’ probative value is a probative value which is important or of consequence.[4] The term ‘significant’ connotes something more than mere relevance but less than a substantial degree of relevance, and requires a judicial evaluation of whether the hypothetical jury would rationally think it likely that the evidence is important in relation to the determination of a fact in issue.[5]

21. The assessment of the probative value of the evidence is to be determined by a trial judge on the assumption that the jury will accept the evidence.[6] This does not involve any assessment of the credibility or reliability of the evidence except in an extreme case in which the evidence is so inherently incredible, fanciful or preposterous that it could not be accepted by a rational jury and so does not meet the criterion of relevance.[7] It was not suggested by the Defence that the proposed coincidence evidence fell within that category. Nor does assessment of the probative value of coincidence evidence involve assessing the significance of the possibility of collusion or concoction which ‘should be left to an occasion when it is raised in a concrete factual setting’.[8]

    Probative value of proposed coincidence evidence

22. The evidence of Waldock and Shier set out in paragraphs [136] (a) and (b) above about what the accused said he had just done to the deceased permits the inference that he had just cut the deceased’s throat with a Stanley knife. The similarities in Shier’s and Waldock’s evidence about what the accused said he had done and the circumstances in which those things occurred make it highly improbable that Waldock and Shier, who are apparently independent witnesses, would have told the same lie coincidentally.[9] In making this assessment, the possibility of collusion, collaboration or innocent infection is not relevant, unless those possibilities rise to a level where it would not be open to the jury rationally to accept the evidence.[10] No such possibility was identified by the Defence. Consequently, it is most unlikely that those two witnesses would give such similar accounts unless those accounts were both truthful and accurate. The evidence of Shier and Waldock about this conduct has strong probative value in making more likely the mechanism of the deceased’s death and the accused’s state of mind at that time, both of which are facts in issue.

23. The Defence oral submission that coincidence evidence cannot be used to bolster the credibility of witnesses is inconsistent with the authorities referred to in footnote 9 above. It is clear that coincidence evidence can be used to do exactly that, as the Criminal Charge Book published by the Judicial College of Victoria makes clear in providing a direction to be given to the jury when coincidence evidence is used to bolster the credit of witnesses.[11]

24. The evidence of Waldock set out in paragraph [136] (c) above about what the accused did to Waldock also has significant similarity to the accused’s conduct towards the deceased as described by Waldock and Shier. Both involved the accused applying a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanely knife) to the same body part, the throat, with a state of mind of menace, namely an intention to harm or cause fear.

25. The Defence argued that there was no significant similarity because one act involved a mere threat to do something and the other involved actually doing something and actually inflicting serious harm. This was said to have the effect that it was entirely plausible, or even likely, that the events occurred coincidentally.

26. I do not accept that. A ‘striking similarity’ between events or conduct, or a ‘system’ or ‘pattern’ or an ‘underlying unity’ is not a pre-requisite to coincidence evidence having significant probative value.[12] Even acknowledging that the accused’s conduct towards Waldock did not extend to actually cutting his throat, whereas the accused’s statements to Waldock and Shier were to the effect that he had cut the deceased’s throat, there is a high degree of similarity. The application of a bladed weapon to Waldock’s throat is a positive act, an assault, involving the same kind of weapon or another bladed weapon, with an intention to cause fear that what was threatened by that conduct would be carried out. The weapon, the body part and the intent of menace are very similar, albeit that the conduct against the deceased went beyond that to actually cutting the deceased’s throat.

27. I am satisfied that it is highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him and then, shortly after, he applied a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanley knife) to Waldock’s throat, and made threats to Waldock.

28. The evidence set out in paragraph [136] (d) above, about the accused saying to his mother that he would cut Shier’s throat and put her in the boot too also has significant similarity to the accused’s statements about his conduct towards the deceased, as described by Waldock and Shier. This conversation occurred some three weeks or so after the alleged conduct towards the deceased, making the two events quite proximate in time. It is the case that this statement involved a threat, rather than an action. Nevertheless, the reference to the cutting of Shier’s throat is very similar to the alleged conduct against the deceased. Further, it is not in dispute that the accused put the deceased’s body into the boot of the Ford, meaning there is similarity in that respect as well. Further, the use of the word ‘too’ is important. It could readily be construed as a reference to having cut the deceased’s throat.

29. I am satisfied that it is highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him about his conduct towards the deceased and then, three weeks later, he threatened to cut Shier’s throat and put her in the boot too.

30. The evidence set out in paragraph [136] (e) above about the accused saying he had said he would cut the throat of LR’s father also has significant similarity to the accused’s statements about his conduct towards the deceased, as described by Waldock and Shier. This statement was made around 10 months after the alleged conduct and again involved a threat rather than action. By itself, it would not have had significant probative value as coincidence evidence. However, having regard to the other proposed coincidence evidence, it has significant probative value because the similarity in the references to the cutting of a person’s throat as a threat or menacing behaviour makes it highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him about his conduct towards the deceased and then, shortly after, applied a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanley knife) to Waldock’s throat and threatened him, and then three weeks later threated to cut Shier’s throat and put her in the boot too, and then 10 months later spoke about threatening to cut the throat of his ex-partner’s father.

31. The proposed coincidence evidence therefore satisfies the requirements of s 98 of the Evidence Act.

    Probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused

32. Section 101(2) of the Evidence Act provides that coincidence evidence adduced by the prosecution cannot be used against the accused unless the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. This involves a balancing exercise assessing and weighing the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudicial effect it may have on the accused.

33. When undertaking this balancing exercise, the dominant consideration is to ensure that the accused is not deprived by prejudice of a fair trial.[13] The notion of prejudice in this general context ‘means the danger of improper use of the evidence. It does not mean its legitimate tendency to inculpate.’[14] Something more is required, such as the possibility that the evidence may be misused by the jury in some respect.

34. In the context of tendency evidence, the plurality in Hughes explained the kinds of potential prejudice within s 101(2) that can arise in a criminal trial:[15]

    In criminal proceedings in which the prosecution seeks to adduce tendency evidence about the accused, s 101(2) of the Evidence Act imposes a further restriction on admissibility: the evidence cannot be used against the accused unless its probative value substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect that it may have on the accused. The reception of tendency evidence in a criminal trial may occasion prejudice in a number of ways. The jury may fail to allow that a person who has a tendency to have a particular state of mind, or to act in a particular way, may not have had that state of mind, or may not have acted in that way, on the occasion in issue. Or the jury may underestimate the number of persons who share the tendency to have that state of mind or to act in that way. In either case the tendency evidence may be given disproportionate weight. In addition to the risks arising from tendency reasoning, there is the risk that the assessment of whether the prosecution has discharged its onus may be clouded by the jury’s emotional response to the tendency evidence. And prejudice may be occasioned by requiring an accused to answer a raft of uncharged conduct stretching back, perhaps, over many years.

35. The requirement for danger of unfair prejudice is not satisfied by the mere possibility of such prejudice. There must be a real risk of prejudice by reason of the admission of the evidence.[16]

36. Section 137 of the Evidence Act obliges the court to refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Given the identical language used in s 101(2), which applies specifically to coincidence evidence, there is no utility in the Defence’s additional reliance on s 137 to exclude the proposed coincidence evidence.

37. The Defence argued that the proposed coincidence evidence would have a prejudicial effect on the accused arising from the jury hearing evidence of other criminality or threats by the accused unrelated to the offending. I reject that submission. First, the proposed coincidence evidence referred to in paragraphs [136] (a), (b) and (c) above is not unrelated to the offending, it relates specifically to the alleged killing of the deceased by the accused and the accused’s threat to Waldock very shortly afterwards not to tell the Police about the alleged killing. It is difficult to imagine a closer relationship to the alleged offending. The proposed coincidence evidence referred to in paragraph [136] (d) above is relied on by the Crown as an implied admission by the accused to the alleged offending. Because of its terms, it has a clear and direct relationship with the alleged offending. Secondly, the Crown case involves brutal treatment of the deceased by the accused and a gruesome mode of killing. In that context, there is no real risk of the jury having any additional emotional reaction to evidence that the accused made threats to people and thereby committed some criminal act.

1. When the accused was met by Clark and Stanborough at the correctional centre, Stanborough told the accused they were not going to question him as he did not know things in detail about their investigation.[113] He explained that Northern Territory Police had engaged them to remove him and he would be returned to the correctional centre by 4pm. The accused volunteered that he knew what it was about, it was about his mate who disappeared.[114] Stanborough told him that they were just facilitating his removal and were not questioning him about the offence because he did not know about the offence. The accused said there was no offence. Stanborough said that they were not questioning him, but Northern Territory Police were in Queensland to talk to him.

2. The accused asked if he was allowed to have a lawyer present and Stanborough said that is a conversation he needs to have with the Northern Territory Police.

3. The accused volunteered that he guessed it was real, they have not found ‘him’, ‘he’ is not coming home.[115] The accused volunteered that he knew he would be questioned at some point because he was one of the last people to see ‘him’, but he was still holding out hopes that ‘he’ was ‘holed up somewhere with some sheila or something like that’.

4. Clark asked the accused what the correctional centre was like, what he did during the day, what happens at the prison farm, where the accused’s family were, and how his health was. The accused responded to those questions.

5. In response to the last question, the accused said that his mental health was not the greatest due to having his ‘ex’ stand up in court and admitting that she pushed him to breaking point where he ‘sort of snapped’.

6. He said:[116]

   ... her main claim was she’s gonna get her dad to cut my throat. Um, so like it was the, the camel, the straw, the straw that wrote [sic] the camel back was me saying: ‘I’ll cut your throat you maggot before I get my throat cut.’ Which doesn’t sound good.

7. The conversation went on for a further 22 pages of transcript, but it is only the portions set out in paragraphs [291] and [294] above that the Crown sought to rely on and tender.

   Not unfair to the accused to admit the two portions of the recorded conversation

8. The Defence argued that the Court should exercise its discretion to refuse to admit the recorded interview under s 90 of the Evidence Act because, having regard to the circumstances in which the two statements were made, it would be unfair to the accused to use the evidence.

9. The Defence argued that the recorded conversation in its entirety was prejudicial to the accused (for example because he discussed the criminal matters for which he had been sentenced) and it was impossible to isolate the portions the Crown seeks to rely on and extract them out of context. I disagree. The two portions are not preceded or followed by any significant explanatory content and are easily understandable without the remainder of the conversation.

10. The Defence also argued that it would be unfair to the accused to use the evidence in circumstances where he was not told, from the very beginning of the transport, that his conversations with police were being recorded and anything he said might have been used in evidence against him.

11. I do not accept that. I make the following findings on the basis of the evidence recited above.

12. First, there was, reasonably on the part of Clark and Stanborough, neither an intention nor an expectation that the accused would provide them with any information which might be admissible against him as evidence. Their sole purpose was to transport the accused to a Police station for questioning by Northern Territory Police officers.

13. Secondly, the recording of interactions during transportation of prisoners by Queensland Police is lawful, routine and standard practice and it is ordinarily done, not to gather evidence that might fall from the mouth of the person being transported, but to ensure an independent record of those interactions in order to meet any allegations of unfair or improper treatment of the person being transported. It was for this reason that Defence did not press any argument in reliance on s 138 of the Evidence Act.

14. Thirdly, it was a condition of the approval given by the Detective Inspector of the Homicide Investigation Unit to obtain the Removal Order that the accused’s interactions with Clark and Stanborough during the transportation be recorded. I do not accept the Defence submissions that the evidence about this was ‘confused’ or ‘wishy-washy’. Stanborough acknowledged that his recollection about this was not clear, but Clark’s evidence was clear and unshaken in cross-examination. I infer that this condition of the approval was essentially for the same purpose as recordings of transportations are made generally.

15. Fourthly, it is common or usual that Queensland Police do not inform people they are transporting that their interactions are being recorded. I infer that to be the case because the purpose of the recording is not to gather evidence, the officers transporting are not engaging in questioning of the suspect and it is not expected that, in the ordinary course, a person being transported would volunteer information which may be used in evidence. Again, I anticipate that it was for this reason that Defence did not press any argument in reliance on s 138 of the Evidence Act.

16. Fifthly, I do not accept that there was any basis upon which to infer that Clark or Stanborough knew or feared that they had done the wrong thing in not informing the accused that they were recording. As I have found, they did not do the wrong thing in recording the interaction with the accused or not informing him that they were doing so; they followed standard operating procedures. Furthermore, there was nothing untoward in the disclosure of the recording by Clark in his addendum statement made in July 2025. The fact of the making of the audio recording was disclosed in Stanborough’s statement made in September 2023, and the fact of the audio recording was disclosed to Flynn shortly after the recorded interview.

17. Sixthly, the accused volunteered the two statements sought to be relied on by the Crown. They were not said in response to any questions by Clark or Stanborough.

18. Seventhly, Clark and Stanborough were not in any position to know, and did not know, that the two statements made by the accused were relevant or significant in the investigation or the alleged offence of murder the subject of the investigation. Aside from the fact that the Northern Territory Police were investigating a murder, they were not aware of any of the details of the investigation. Further, the first statement was, effectively, a denial of any involvement in the deceased’s disappearance and the second statement was, on its face, wholly unrelated to the alleged offence of murder.

19. For these reasons, s 90 is not enlivened.

    Probative value of the recorded interview outweighs danger of unfair prejudice to the accused

20. The Defence argued that the Court must refuse to admit the recorded interview under s 137 of the Evidence Act because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

21. The probative value of the first statement by the accused in the recorded conversation is not substantial, but it does have some value as a lie told by the accused some 10 months after the deceased’s death to Police officers on a separate occasion from that of the recorded interview. Given that the Crown seeks to rely on the number of lies told by the accused over an extended period of time to establish consciousness of guilt, the probative value of this lie is not insignificant.

22. As set out in paragraph [151] above, having regard to the other proposed coincidence evidence, the second statement has significant probative value.

23. Essentially, the only danger of unfair prejudice to the accused identified by the Defence was that referred to in paragraph [297], which I have already rejected.

24. Consequently, the probative value of the two statements in the recorded conversation is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused within s 137 of the Evidence Act.

    Conclusion in relation to portions of recorded conversation with the accused on 29 March 2023

25. For the above reasons, the two portions of the recorded conversation with the accused on 29 March 2023 during the transport are admissible pursuant to s 81 of the Evidence Act and are not rendered inadmissible by ss 85(2), 90, 137 or 138.

    Consciousness of guilt evidence

26. The Crown sought to rely on the evidence referred to in paragraphs [37]-[38], [40], [42]-[46], [49]-[56], [61]-[67], [70], [72]-[76], [81], [82], [86]-[88], [95], [107], [110], [111], [116], [117] and [123] above as evidence of post-offending conduct, essentially hiding evidence of the deceased’s death, including moving and disposing of the deceased’s body, threatening eye witnesses and telling lies, as evidencing his consciousness of guilt.

27. Essentially, the Defence argued that none of the above evidence was admissible as an admission to the offence of murder, as opposed to conduct which could reasonably be explained by the accused’s involvement in an unintended killing of the deceased, which he had admitted by his plea of guilty to manslaughter on the voir dire.

28. In The Queen v Baden-Clay,[117] the High Court cited with approval (at [73]) the following passage from The Queen v White[118] (at [27]):

    As a general rule, it will be for the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence as a whole, whether the post-offence conduct of the accused is related to the crime before them rather than to some other culpable act. It is also within the province of the jury to consider how much weight, if any, such evidence should be accorded in the final determination of guilt or innocence. For the trial judge to interfere with that process will in most cases constitute a usurpation of the jury’s exclusive fact-finding role.

29. The High Court added (at [74]) that there may be cases where post-offence conduct, such as the accused’s flight or concealment, is so out of proportion to the level of culpability involved in a lesser offence that it might be found by the jury to be more consistent with the more serious offence charged. There may be cases where an accused goes to such lengths to conceal the death or to distance himself or herself from it so as to provide a basis on which the jury might conclude that the accused had committed an extremely serious crime and so warrant a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the accused for the death and the concurrent existence in the accused of the intent necessary for murder. The High Court added that there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of post-offence concealment and lies is always intractably neutral as between murder and manslaughter.

30. The High Court held (at [76]) that it was open to the jury in the case to regard the lengths to which the respondent went to conceal his wife’s body and to conceal his part in her demise as beyond what was likely, as a matter of human experience, to have been engendered by a consciousness of having unintentionally killed his wife.

31. The Defence sought to distinguish the decision in Baden-Clay from the present case on the basis that, in Baden-Clay, the accused had given evidence denying any role in the death of his wife, whereas here, the accused had entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter.

32. That is not any sensible basis for distinction. The High Court’s decision and the principle cited from The Queen v White did not turn on the respondent’s denial of any involvement in killing his wife.

33. In Gale v Tasmania,[119] the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an argument very similar to that of the accused. The applicant in that case submitted that the evidence of his post-offence conduct was equally consistent with his crime having been manslaughter rather than murder. Reference was made (at [25]-[27]) to The Queen v White and Baden-Clay.

34. Reference was also made (at [28]) to a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in The Queen v Ciantar.[120] In that case, the appellant contended that evidence of his flight from the scene of a fatal collision was equally consistent with a consciousness of guilt of less serious driving offences such as drink driving. The Court of Appeal held (at [39]) that, even allowing that a possible explanation of the post-offence conduct was that he was conscious he had committed one or more lesser offence as opposed to the offence charged, it does not follow that the post-offence conduct could not be left to the jury as something which was capable of supporting an inference that the applicant was conscious that he had committed the offence charged. The Court of Appeal added (at [40]) that there may be some cases in which post-offence conduct is equally consistent with two or more possible offences or is otherwise intractably neutral and it may then not be open on the totality of the evidence to draw an inference that the accused had a consciousness of guilt of some particular conduct. But where such lies or conduct are considered in the context of all of the evidence, it is not to be assumed that it will usually be so. Indeed, in the scheme of things, it is not likely to be so in many cases.

35. In this case, considered in the context of the other evidence in the case, particularly the direct evidence from Shier and Waldock about what the accused did to the deceased, this is not a case in which the accused’s post-offence conduct is equally consistent with the offences of murder and manslaughter or otherwise intractably neutral. It is a rational inference that the accused moved and set fire to the deceased’s body, threatened the eye witnesses to prevent them from reporting the death to Police, and lied about his involvement in the deceased’s death for a lengthy period of time because of an awareness that the injury he had inflicted to the deceased (a cut throat) implicated him in a murder rather than an unintentional death.

36. Consequently, it is properly for the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence as a whole, whether the post-offence conduct of the accused is related to the crime of murder rather than to the crime of manslaughter, and to consider how much weight, if any, such evidence should be accorded in the final determination of guilt or innocence. To omit this evidence on the basis relied on by the Defence would, in this case, constitute a usurpation of the jury’s exclusive fact-finding role.

37. The evidence sought to be relied on by the Crown as evidence of consciousness of guilt is admissible for that purpose.

    Section 85(2) – Circumstances were such as to make it unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected

38. The Defence objected to the admissibility of, essentially, the lies told by the accused to Police officers on the basis that they were ‘made to [a] person in authority and not an honest account in an attempt to avoid arrest’.

39. This submission misunderstands the operation and effect of s 85(2) of the Evidence Act.

40. Section 85(2) provides that evidence of an admission is not admissible unless the circumstances in which it was made were such as to make it unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected. By s 85(3), the court may take into account (relevantly) any relevant condition or characteristic of the accused (including age, personality, education, any mental, intellectual or physical disability); and the nature of the questions and the manner in which they were put.

41. As referred to above, s 85 of the Evidence Act is concerned with whether the circumstances adversely affected the ‘truth of the admission’. It is not directly concerned with whether the evidence has been improperly or illegally obtained, or general considerations of fairness, and nor is the provision concerned with the voluntariness of the admission, except to the extent that it might bear on the assessment of reliability in the relevant sense.[121]

42. The enquiry also does not raise any consideration of whether the admissions made were, in fact, true.[122] In the case of an admission comprising a confession, the relevant enquiry is whether circumstances such as the accused’s personal characteristics and the level of compliance with procedural safeguards may have affected the truth of the confession.[123]

43. The operation of the provision and the relevant factors and considerations were identified by Barr J in R v GP[124] (at [30]) in the following terms:

    The prosecution in the present case must satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the admissions relied on were made in circumstances that were not likely to affect their truth adversely [Bin Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283 at [81]]. As trial judge, I must determine whether the reliability of the admissions may have been impaired by the way in which they were obtained. In this exercise, I need to consider all the circumstances. Those circumstances include the characteristics of the accused person making the admission, including age, personality, education and any mental, intellectual or physical disability affecting him. The circumstances would also include, where they exist, misconduct by those interrogating, the procedural safeguards adopted, and whether there was any impairment of the ability of the person making the admission to make a rational decision.

44. In other words, the enquiry is whether the circumstances were such that it was unlikely that the accused made a false confession.[125]

45. It has been held that the provision applies to both admissions per se (i.e. inculpatory statements) and admissions comprising lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt (i.e. exculpatory statements relied on as lies). In The Queen v Esposito,[126] the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal held that:

    If upon the evidence led on the voir dire ... a question legitimately arises as to whether the circumstances were such that the truth (or untruth) of the admission might have been adversely affected, then it falls to the Crown to establish upon a balance of probabilities that it was unlikely that this was the case. The inquiry undertaken by the judge is not concerned with the question whether the admission was in fact made, or whether it was true (or untrue); each is for the jury...

46. Nothing about the accused’s personal characteristics or the manner of questioning has been identified by the Defence that gave rise to any particular issue affecting the truth, or untruth, of the admission.

47. The repeated submission, without particular reference to anything, that it was reasonable for the accused to have been considered a suspect at the time of an admission to a Police officer and cautioned at that time has no basis in the evidence on the voir dire and is not a sufficient basis upon which the Court could be satisfied that a question legitimately arises as to whether the circumstances were such that the truth or untruth of the admissions made on any particular occasion might have been adversely affected.

48. Section 85(2) of the Evidence Act is not a barrier to the admissibility of any of this evidence.

    No unfairness to the accused or danger of unfair prejudice to the accused

49. The Defence argued that the Court should refuse to admit the evidence because it would be unfair to the accused to use it within s 90 of the Evidence Act and/or the Court must refuse to admit the recorded interview under s 137 of the Evidence Act because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

50. The Defence written submission on this point was as follows:

    In the absence of any specific probity to the charge on indictment, the risk of the danger of unfair prejudice arising from a direction and usage purported by the Crown, whilst some of the evidence will be transactional in nature and before the jury, no direction as to such use should be given to the jury.

51. As I understood it, this was a submission that it would be unfair to the accused to permit the Crown to use the evidence and/or it would give rise to a danger of unfair prejudice to the accused to admit the evidence because it has no probative value as evidence of consciousness of guilt to the offence of murder.

1. So understood, it is merely a repetition of the submission that the evidence is incapable of establishing consciousness of the accused’s guilt for the offence of murder. I have already rejected that submission.

2. Sections 90 and 137 of the Evidence Act are not enlivened.

   Conclusion in relation to the proposed consciousness of guilt evidence

3. For the above reasons, the evidence referred to in paragraph [314] above is admissible for the purpose for which the Crown seeks to rely upon it and is not rendered inadmissible by ss 90 or 137.

   Other evidence objected to

4. In written submissions, the Defence made objections to the admissibility of evidence of various other statements made by the accused as referred to under the heading ‘Crown case’ above. Those objections were in the following terms:

   ... do not assist the jury in deciding fact in issue (intention to kill as opposed to manslaughter) and are unfair to [the accused]. Excluded pursuant to s 90 and/or s 137.

5. No other submission was made, in writing or orally, to explain the specific content of any particular statement and how it was irrelevant to a fact in issue or the asserted unfairness. Understandably, no submission was made by the Crown in response. I do not propose to address those objections. If pressed at the trial, the admissibility of that other evidence could be addressed then.

   ------------------------

[1]See Derwish v The Queen [2016] VSCA 72 at [75] per Weinberg AP, Redlich and Kyrou JJA.

[2]Evidence Act, s 3, Dictionary, Part 1.

[3]      Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338 (‘Hughes’) at [16] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Edelman JJ.

[4]      IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300 at [46] per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ (‘IMM’).

[5]      BD v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 2 at [84] per Grant CJ, Kelly and Barr JJ.

[6]IMM at [51]-[52], [54]; The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56 at [69].

[7]IMM at [38]-[39], [41], [58].

[8]Ibid at [59].

[9]See Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292 at 295 per Mason CJ, Wilson and Gaudron JJ; NAM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 95 at [19] per Maxwell P (Buchanan and Nettle JJA agreeing).

[10]See The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56 at [69] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ.

[11]Judicial college of Victoria, Criminal Charge Book, [4.18.1].

[12]See CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288 at [22] per Maxwell P, Buchanan and Neave JJA; CV v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] VSCA 58 at [9] per Redlich, Osborn JJA and Sifris AJA, citing Phillips v The Queen (2006) 225 CLR 303

[13]The Queen v AW [2018] NTSC 29 at [30] per Grant CJ.

[14]    HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334; OAE v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334 at [12] per Gleeson CJ.

[15]    Hughes at [17].

[16]The Queen v Lisoff [1999] NSWCCA 364 at [60] per Spigelman CJ, Newman and Sully JJ.

[17]Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338 (‘Hughes’) at [16] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Edelman JJ (citations omitted).

[18]Ibid at [41].

[19]IMM at [38]-[39], [41], [58].

[20]Director of Public Prosecutions v Roder (2024) 98 ALJR 644 at [24] per the Court, citing Hughes at [16].

[21]Ibid.

[22]Ebborn v The King [2025] NTCCA 2 (‘Ebborn’) at [66]-[74] per the Court, citing Roder at [35] and Potter v The King [2024] SASCA 108 at [114] per Doyle and David JJA (Kourakis CJ agreeing).

[23]RH v The Queen (2014) 241 A Crim R 1 at [88]-[130] per Ward JA (Harrison and RA Hulme JJ agreeing);TB v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 224 at [90], [104] per Ward JA (Harrison and RA Hulme JJ agreeing); Vagg v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 134 at [73] per Simpson AJA (Rothman and N Adams JJ agreeing).

[24]Aravena v The Queen (2015) 91 NSWLR 258 at [89] per the Court.

[25]Ebborn at [99] per the Court, citing TL v The King (2022) 275 CLR 83 at [37].

[26]Ebborn at [87]-[92] per the Court.

[27]See Part 1 of the Dictionary.

[28]Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 19^th ed, 2020) [EA.81.60].

[29]Citing The Queen v W [1999] NSWCCA 116 at [39]-[41] per Wood CJ at CL (Barr and James JJ agreeing). See also The Queen v Visagie [2021] NTSC 73 at [12]-[14] per Brownhill J.

[30]See Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Interim) Report (Report 26, Vol 1) [755], extracted in Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 19^th ed, 2020) [EA.81.240].

[31](2020) 94 ALJR 686 per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Gordon JJ.

[32]See Tim Barr Pty Ltd v Narui Gold Coast Pty Ltd (2009) 258 ALR 598 at [48], [50] and [54] per Barrett J.

[33]The Queen v Downs [2019] NTSC 7 (‘Downs’) at [29] per Grant CJ.

[34]Mole v Prior (2016) 36 NTLR 171 at [30] per Riley CJ, Kelly and Hiley JJ, citing Robinson v Woolworths Ltd (2005) 158 A Crim R 546 at [23] per Basten JA (Barr J agreeing).

[35]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 8 (Flynn).

[36]Ibid.

[37]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 10 (Flynn).

[38]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 10 (Flynn).

[39]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 10 (Flynn).

[40]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 11 (Flynn).

[41]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 28 (Wheeler).

[42]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 12 (Flynn).

[43]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 13 (Flynn).

[44]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 14 (Flynn).

[45]Exhibit P7.

[46]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 9 (Flynn); p 28 (Wheeler).

[47]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 9 (Flynn), p 29 (Wheeler).

[48]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 4.

[49]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 5.

[50]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 16 (Flynn).

[51]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 29 (Wheeler).

[52]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023 (Ex P1), [38].

[53]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023 (Ex P1), [38]; Statement of Wheeler made on 11 April 2024, [34]; Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 18 (Flynn), p 30 (Wheeler).

[54]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 30 (Wheeler).

[55]Official Diary Extract of Clark (Ex P6); Statement of Stanborough made on 10 September 2025 (Ex P8), [11].

[56]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023 (Ex P1), [39].

[57]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023 (Ex P1), [40]; Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 17 (Flynn).

[58]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023, [40]; Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 17 (Flynn).

[59]Statement of Flynn made on 15 August 2023, [40]; Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 17 (Flynn).

[60]Transcript of recorded interview, p 1.

[61]Transcript of recorded interview, p 2.

[62]Transcript of recorded interview, p 3.

[63]Transcript of recorded interview, p 4.

[64]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 18, 20 (Flynn), pp 31-32 (Wheeler).

[65]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 20, 22.

[66]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 25.

[67]Transcript 30 July 2025, p 32 (Wheeler).

[68]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 6, 9 (Flynn), p 27 (Wheeler).

[69]Transcript of Recorded Interview, p 3.

[70]Transcript of Recorded Interview, p 7.

[71]Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 33A(1).

[72]Police v Williams (2014) 246 A Crim R 317.

[73]See, for example, Kadir v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 109 at [40]-[41] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ; Cornwell v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 59 at [178]-[180] per McClellan CJ at CL [292] per Simpson J (Johnson J agreeing); Re Lee (2009) 212 A Crim R 442 at [31] per Penfold J; Martin v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 38 at [64]-[66] per Refshauge, Burns and Ross JJ.

[74]The Queen v Grech [2017] NSWCCA 288 at [119] per Ward JA; Price, Beech-Jones JJ.

[75]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 42.

[76]Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs (2009) 252 ALR 619 at [28].

[77]The King v Marcus [2025] NTSC 39 at [18] per Grant J.

[78]Ibid.

[79]Ibid, citing The Queen v Flemming [2007] NSWCA 328 at [31].

[80]The King v Marcus [2025] NTSC 39 at [19] per Grant J.

[81]The King v Marcus [2025] NTSC 39 at [20] per Grant J.

[82]Kadir v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 109 at [41], [51] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ; Slater v The Queen [2019] VSCA 213 at [44] per the Court.

[83]See, for example, Strikland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth DPP (2018) 93 ALJR 1 at [100]. In that case, the impropriety was a grossly negligent abrogation of statutory responsibilities by way of invocation of a statutory power of questioning where the right to silence was limited, for a purpose other than the specific, identified statutory purpose or which did not accord strictly with the statute: at [101].

[84]See, for example, The Queen v FE [2013] NSWSC 1692 at [61]-[64], [68], [134]. That involved holding the accused, a youth, in a room and telling her she was not allowed to leave, and questioning her when she had not been cautioned or arrested, on a subsequent occasion, after her arrest, providing a support person she did not choose who had English language difficulties, and conducting a recorded interview with her even though she unequivocally informed Police that she did not want to be interviewed or recorded, her lawyer had confirmed that to Police in writing, the accused had unequivocally reiterated to Police that she did not want to be interviewed and was told she had to, and the accused did not understand the caution. The Court held (at [68]) that the accused did not understand her right to silence or that she was entitled to refuse to answer questions, and the Police took advantage of her youth, her vulnerability and her support person’s limited education and English, which ill-equipped her to protect the accused’s rights.

[85]The Queen v Layt [2018] NTSC 36 at [58], [61]-[62] per Grant CJ; The Queen v Jennings [2020] NTSC 71 at [12]-[14] per Grant CJ.

[86]Statement of Clark made on 28 September 2023 (Ex P4), [3].

[87]Addendum Statement of Clark made on 23 July 2025 (Ex P5), [9].

[88]Addendum Statement of Clark made on 23 July 2025 (Ex P5), [10].

[89]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 51 (Stanborough).

[90]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 52 (Stanborough).

[91]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 55 (Stanborough).

[92]Statement of Clark made on 28 September 2023 (Ex P4), [4]-[7].

[93]Addendum Statement of Clark made on 23 July 2025 (Ex P5), [11]; Statement of Stanborough made on 10 September 2023 (Ex P8), [8], [19].

[94]Addendum Statement of Clark made on 23 July 2025 (Ex P5), [11].

[95]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 38 (Clark), p 50 (Stanborough).

[96]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 38 (Clark), p 50 (Stanborough).

[97]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 38-39 (Clark).

[98]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 51 (Stanborough).

[99]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 39 (Clark); p 57 (Stanborough).

[100]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 52 (Stanborough).

[101]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 41 (Clark).

[102]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 43.

[103]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 48-49.

[104]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 57 (Stanborough).

[105]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 53 (Stanborough).

[106]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 53 (Stanborough).

[107]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 54 (Stanborough).

[108]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 55 (Stanborough).

[109]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 44.

[110]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 46.

[111]Transcript, 30 July 2025, pp 47-48.

[112]Transcript, 30 July 2025, p 48.

[113]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 1.

[114]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 2.

[115]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 3.

[116]Transcript of recorded conversation, p 5.

[117]The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308.

[118]The Queen v White [1998] 2 SCR 72.

[119]Gale v Tasmania [2024] TASCCA 3.

[120]The Queen v Ciantar [2006) 16 VR 26.

[121]The Queen v Downs [2019] NTSC 7 (‘Downs’) at [29] per Grant CJ.

[122]Ibid at [30].

[123]Ibid at [30], citing R v GP (2015) 35 NTLR 117 at [30].

[124](2015) 35 NTLR 117.

[125]    Downs at [30] per Grant CJ, citing R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442 at 459-460; R v Rooke (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Newman, Levine and Barr JJ, No 60550/96, 2 September 1997).

[126]    The Queen v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442 at 459 per Woods CJ.