The Queen v Hoffmann (No 2) - [2021] NTSC 84

CITATION:The Queen v Hoffmann (No 2) [2021] NTSC 84
PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v
HOFFMANN, Benjamin

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:21922564
DELIVERED:  24 August 2021
HEARING DATE:  24 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:  L Babb SC with T Grealy
Accused:J Tippett QC with C Voumard
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:     C
Judgment ID Number:  Gra2113
Number of pages:  19

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Hoffman (No 2) [2021] NTSC 84
No 21922564

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

BENJAMIN HOFFMANN

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 24 August 2021)
[1]The Crown has sought to have the following matters determined as preliminary issues in advance of the trial:
(a)applications for certain witnesses to be declared as vulnerable witnesses within the meaning of s 21AB of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT) so that they may give their evidence at trial from the vulnerable witness room or in the court room with a screen placed so that the witness’s view of the defendant is obscured;
(b)applications for leave for certain witnesses to give their evidence at trial by audiovisual link;
(c)applications that the evidence of two witnesses be received by way of statement pursuant to s 65 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (‘the ENULA’); and
(d)an application for the conduct of a view pursuant to s 53 of the ENULA.

The Crown case
[2]The charges against the accused and the nature of the Crown case are described in The Queen v Hoffmann [2021] NTSC 31.
Vulnerable witnesses
[3]The Crown has applied for the 14 witnesses listed in the Schedule at Annexure 1 to these Reasons to be declared as vulnerable witnesses within the meaning of s 21AB of the Evidence Act so that they may give their evidence at trial from the vulnerable witness room or in the court room with a screen placed so that the witness’s view of the defendant is obscured.
[4]When the Crown application was first made, no objection was taken to the application in relation to the witnesses numbered 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13. However, objection was initially notified to the application in relation to the other witnesses listed in the Schedule on the grounds of relevance (witness 4), or that the witness did not qualify as ‘vulnerable’ (witnesses 5, 6, 7, 9 and 14).
[5]Section 21AB of the Evidence Act provides:
Meaning of vulnerable witness
A "vulnerable witness"means a witness in proceedings:
(a) who is a child; or
(b) who has a cognitive impairment or an intellectual disability; or
(c) who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence to which the proceedings relate; or
(d) who is a complainant in a domestic violence offence proceeding; or
(e) whom a court considers to be vulnerable.

[6]Categories (a) to (d) are…

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 Hoffmann (No 2)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Hoffmann (No 2) [2021] NTSC 84
Case: [2021] NTSC 84
Decision Date: 24 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown sought to determine several preliminary matters in advance of the trial of Benjamin Hoffmann, including applications for certain witnesses to be declared as vulnerable witnesses, leave for certain witnesses to give their evidence by audiovisual link, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the conduct of a view. Hoffmann did not object to the majority of the witnesses being declared as vulnerable witnesses, but objected to one witness on the basis of relevance and another on the basis that the witness did not qualify as vulnerable. The court found that the witnesses in question did in fact qualify as vulnerable witnesses and that the arrangements for giving evidence would be in their best interests. The court also found that leave for the witnesses to give evidence by audiovisual link was appropriate in the circumstances. The court further found that the hearsay evidence of two witnesses was admissible, as it satisfied at least one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Finally, the court found that a view would assist the court in resolving issues of fact and understanding the evidence and ordered that a view be conducted. The court made orders in relation to the preliminary matters in line with its findings.

Orders