The Queen v Baker - [2021] NTSC 1

CITATION:The Queen v Baker [2021] NTSC 1
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

BAKER, Rachel

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21851049
DELIVERED: 15 January 2021

HEARING DATE: 8 January 2021
JUDGMENT OF: Brownhill J
CATCHWORDS:

Evidence – Application for witnesses to give evidence by audiovisual link – Considerations when determining whether application be granted – Efficient use of judicial and administrative resources – Any other matter the Court considers appropriate – Current authority pertaining to the use of audiovisual links – Court to be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for evidence to be given by audiovisual link – Application granted – Avoidance of expense of public money a relevant and significant factor bearing upon interests of justice – Potential detriment to effectiveness of cross-examination and jury’s ability to assess credit negligible – Inconvenience to witnesses a consideration – Experience of police officer a consideration – Direction to be given to jury regarding giving of evidence by audiovisual link.
Evidence Act 1939 (NT) Pt 5 Div 2, s 49, s 49D, s 49E, s 49F, s 49L
Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) s 5(1), s 8(1)
Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) (2009) 181 FCR 152, R v Goldman (2004) 148 A Crim R 40, R v Kim (1998) 104 A Crim R 233, R v Sutton (2015) 250 A Crim R 457, Tetra Pak Marketing Pty Ltd v Musashi Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 126, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:N Loudon
Respondent:  M Thomas
Solicitors:
Applicant:Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  John Toohey Chambers
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Bro2101
Number of pages:  15

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Baker [2021] NTSC 1

No. 21851049
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

RACHEL BAKER

CORAM: BROWNHILL J
REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 15 January 2021)
Background

The accused is charged on indictment with supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis plant material contrary to s 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT) (‘MODA’), and with possessing $32,100 in cash being property obtained from the supply of cannabis plant material contrary to s 8(1) of the MODA. The trial is listed to commence on 18 January 2021 and to last for nine days.
The Crown alleges that the accused and Steven Tipungwuti-Peris (‘the co-accused’) were in a relationship, residing in Darwin. The accused grew up in Galiwinku on Elcho Island. Between January 2017 and December 2018, the accused and the co-accused sourced commercial quantities of cannabis and arranged for it to be sent, by various means, to Galiwinku for supply. From time to time, they would travel to Galiwinku, stay there and supply cannabis themselves from the house they stayed in. When they were not in Galiwinku, they would also have others supply cannabis in the community on their behalf. If they were in Galiwinku, the accused would take the cash from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Queen v Baker

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Baker [2021] NTSC 1
Case: [2021] NTSC 1
Decision Date: 15 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Baker, the applicant sought to have witnesses give their evidence via audiovisual link. The dispute arose in the County Court of Victoria, where the prosecution was required to determine the admissibility and appropriateness of this method of evidence presentation. The central legal issue before the court was whether the use of audiovisual links for witness testimonies was justified under the circumstances, balancing considerations such as the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources, the interests of justice, and the potential impact on the effectiveness of cross-examination and the jury's ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

The court carefully considered the current legal framework governing the use of audiovisual links in court proceedings. It examined whether the application was in the interests of justice, taking into account various factors. Among these were the avoidance of the expense of public money, the potential detriment to the effectiveness of cross-examination, the jury's capacity to assess the credit of the witnesses, and the inconvenience to the witnesses themselves. The court also noted the experience of the police officer involved as a pertinent consideration. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that the interests of justice were best served by allowing the witnesses to give their evidence via audiovisual link, deeming the potential detriment to be negligible. Consequently, the application was granted, with a direction to be given to the jury regarding the mode of evidence presentation to ensure they understood the context in which it was being provided.

The final orders included granting the application for witnesses to testify via audiovisual link, with explicit directions to the jury to consider the mode of evidence presentation when assessing the credibility of the witnesses. This decision highlighted the court's commitment to balancing modern procedural efficiencies with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.

Orders