The Queen v Edwards - [2021] NTSC 87

CITATION:The Queen v Edwards [2021] NTSC 87
PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v
EDWARDS, Samuel

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21946178
DELIVERED:  20 September 2021
HEARING DATE:  7 September 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Kelly J

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:C Hollingworth
Accused:M Aust
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Kel2120
Number of pages:  21

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Edwards [2021] NTSC 87

21946178

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

SAMUEL EDWARDS

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore on 20 September 2021)

The accused was charged with one count of unlawfully assaulting a person (CJ) who was taking action to prevent injury to a third person (Carol Armstrong), one count of the murder of Carol Armstrong, and one count of engaging in conduct that gave rise to a danger of serious harm to Marcia Bobby. He pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3 and was found guilty of murder following a trial by jury on count 2. During the course of the proceeding a number of evidentiary issues arose and I made a number of rulings. These are the reasons for those rulings.
The Crown’s allegations against the accused are, in summary, that on Friday 13 December 2019, the accused and the deceased were drinking at a unit in Moulden. The accused was also smoking cannabis. The deceased was in the shower behind a locked door. The accused yelled at her to hurry up, then unlocked the bathroom door with a butter knife. He dragged the deceased from the shower and assaulted her including kicking her, slamming her head into a wall and hitting her several times with a hard suitcase. He yelled, “I don’t care if I go back to gaol, I’ll kill you.” The deceased pleaded with him to stop but he did not stop. He repeatedly slammed her head into the ground and hit her with a milk crate. He continued to punch her as she lay on the ground and threw a fry pan at her. Several people tried unsuccessfully to intervene. (This gave rise to the assault charge on count 1.) Finally, the accused stabbed the deceased five times with a kitchen knife – four times to the head and once to the left shoulder. He also stabbed Marcia Bobby once in the left shoulder from behind. Then he left the unit.
The Crown has given notice under s 97(1) of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (“UEA”) of its intention to adduce tendency evidence. The Crown relied on some of the same evidence as relationship evidence.
Defence counsel objected to the tendency evidence, but conceded that some of the evidence was relevant as relationship evidence.
Tendency evidence
The amended tendency notice advised that the tendencies sought to be proved are the tendency of the accused:
(a)to have a particular…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Edwards [2021] NTSC 87
Case: [2021] NTSC 87
Decision Date: 20 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Edwards was heard in a court of law, where the defendant, Edwards, was on trial for various charges including violent offences. The prosecution sought to introduce tendency evidence regarding the defendant's history of violent behaviour, particularly towards people he had a personal relationship with, especially after consuming alcohol. This evidence was intended to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that could establish the defendant's state of mind and actions on the occasions in question.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tendency evidence provided by the prosecution had significant probative value as required by section 97 of the Uniform Evidence Act. The defence argued that the evidence was not admissible because it did not meet the threshold of having significant probative value. They also contested the adequacy of the notice provided by the prosecution regarding the intended use of the tendency evidence, especially considering the proximity of the trial date.

The court examined the probative value of the tendency evidence by considering whether it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of the facts in issue to a significant extent. The court noted that tendency evidence is admissible if it establishes a person's propensity to have a particular state of mind or to act in a particular way, which can then be reasoned to the likelihood that the person had the particular state of mind or acted in the particular way on the occasion in question. The court found that the evidence of the defendant's prior convictions for violent offences did have significant probative value regarding the issues of intent and state of mind on the occasions in question.

The court ruled that the tendency evidence was admissible because it met the criteria of significant probative value. The court also found that the notice provided by the prosecution was adequate despite its late issuance, as the defence had not been prejudiced in preparing their case. The court's decision allowed the prosecution to present the tendency evidence to support their case against the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Defence counsel objected to the tendency evidence, but conceded that some of the evidence was relevant as relationship evidence.Tendency evidence The amended tendency notice advised that the tendencies sought to be proved are the tendency of the accused:(a)to have a particular state of mind, namely an angry and violent disposition towards people he has a personal relationship with, especially after consuming alcohol, and(b)to act in a particular way namely resort to aggression and violence when angry or intoxicated and use weapons when angry or intoxicated. The conduct about which evidence is sought to be adduced is set out in a table in the tendency notice. Essentially it is the conduct the subject of ten prior convictions for violent offences. In each case, the accused pleaded guilty. The victims were his stepfather (on two occasions), the deceased (on one occasion), his former domestic partner (on four occasions) and a number of other people. The tendency evidence is said to be relevant to:(a)whether the accused intended to cause death or serious harm to the deceased on the occasion in question;(b)whether he intended to cause serious harm to Marcia Bobby on that occasion; and(c)whether he assaulted CJ. The defence objects to this evidence being adduced as tendency evidence. The defence also objects to the adequacy of the amended tendency notice, given the proximity of the trial which was to start on 20 September 2021. Under UEA s 97, evidence of the conduct of a person is not admissible to prove that a person has or had a tendency to act in a particular way, or to have a particular state of mind unless the appropriate notice has been given and the court thinks that the evidence will (either by itself or having regard to other evidence to be adduced) have significant probative value. Leaving aside the adequacy of the notice for the time being, the question for the purpose of s 97 is whether the evidence set out in the tendency notice has significant probative value in relation to the issues specified in the notice. Significance means something in between mere relevance, and a substantial degree of relevance. The potential probative value of tendency evidence was explained by the High Court in Hughes v The Queen:[1]The probative value of evidence is the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. Tendency 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. The trier of fact reasons from satisfaction that a person has a tendency to have a particular state of mind, or to act in a particular way, to the likelihood that the person had the particular state of mind, or acted in the particular way, on the occasion in issue. ... The starting point in either case requires identifying the tendency and the fact or facts in issue which it is adduced to prove. The facts in issue in a criminal proceeding are those which establish the elements of the offence. (citations omitted)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.