[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List]

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 76

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

MURDOCH, Bradley John (No 2)

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20215807

DELIVERED: 15 December 2005

HEARING DATES: 7-8 March, 21-22 & 26 April 2005, 18 October – 13 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW

Murder – admissibility of expert evidence – DNA Low Copy Number technique (LCN) – possibility of contamination – evidence admitted.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: R Wild QC, A Elliott, A Barnett & J Down
Defendant: I Barker QC, G Algie, M Twiggs & I Read

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID Number: Mar0521
Number of pages: 29

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

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 76
No. 20215807

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Plaintiff

AND:

MURDOCH, Bradley John
Defendant

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 December 2005)

Introduction

[1] The accused is charged that on 14 July 2001 near Barrow Creek he murdered Peter Marco Falconio. He is also charged that on the same occasion he deprived Joanne Rachael Lees of her personal liberty and that he unlawfully assaulted Ms Lees in circumstances of aggravation.

[2] The Crown proposed to lead DNA evidence which it said linked the accused to the scene of the crime. The accused objected to the omission of part of that evidence. I ruled that the evidence could be led and I now set out my reasons for that ruling.

Facts

[3] Early in the evening of Thursday 14 July 2001 Ms Lees and Mr Falconio were travelling north in a Kombie van on the Stuart Highway approximately 10 kilometres north of Barrow Creek. Mr Falconio was driving. A vehicle pulled alongside and the driver gestured to Mr Falconio to pull over. It is the Crown case that the driver of the other vehicle was the accused.

[4] After Mr Falconio stopped the vehicle on the side of the highway, he walked to the rear of the Kombi van where he met the driver of the other vehicle. Ms Lees could hear the men talking about sparks coming from the exhaust. Mr Falconio returned to the driver’s side door and asked Ms Lees to rev the engine. That was the last time that Ms Lees or anyone else saw Mr Falconio alive.

[5] While Ms Lees was revving the engine, she heard a loud bang. It is the Crown case that the driver of the other vehicle shot Mr Falconio.

[6] Ms Lees ceased revving the engine and turned to look out the window. She observed a male person standing at the driver’s side window with a gun pointed at her.

[7] The details of subsequent events relied upon by the Crown for the purposes of the pre-trial…

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 Murdoch

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 076
Case: [2005] NTSC 76
Decision Date: 15 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the prosecution of Bradley John Murdoch for the murder of Peter Falconio and the deprivation of personal liberty and assault of Joanne Rachael Lees. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was required to decide on the admissibility of DNA evidence obtained using the Low Copy Number (LCN) technique, particularly regarding potential contamination. The court found the LCN technique to be scientifically valid and generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. It ruled that the evidence was reliable and that the potential for contamination did not render the evidence inadmissible, as it would be open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the results accurately represented the DNA present at the crime scene. The court did not exclude the evidence in the exercise of its discretion.

Orders