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

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 79

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

MURDOCH, Bradley John (No 5)

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 evidence of possession of weapons and habit of carrying weapons – 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: Mar0524
Number of pages: 12

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

The Queen v Murdoch [2005] NTSC 79
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 sought to lead evidence concerning the possession by the accused of a number of weapons and of his habit of carrying a loaded weapon in his motor vehicle during trips between South Australia and Western Australia. I now set out my reasons for rulings given in connection with this evidence.

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 are set out in my reasons for judgment in R…

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 079
Case: [2005] NTSC 79
Decision Date: 15 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought charges against Bradley John Murdoch, who is alleged to have murdered Peter Marco Falconio and assaulted Joanne Rachael Lees on 14 July 2001. Murdoch was also accused of depriving Lees of her personal liberty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The primary legal issue was whether evidence of Murdoch's possession of weapons and his habit of carrying a loaded weapon in his vehicle during trips between South Australia and Western Australia could be admitted. The court had to determine if this evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court found that the evidence concerning Murdoch's possession of weapons was relevant and had probative value. The descriptions of the weapon provided by witnesses were consistent in a general way with the weapon described by Lees, which increased its relevance. The court determined that the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, especially considering Murdoch's involvement in illegal activities such as trading in cannabis. The court reasoned that a jury hearing about Murdoch's possession of such a weapon would not likely engage in impermissible reasoning, given appropriate directions. Therefore, the evidence was deemed admissible and should not be excluded in the exercise of the court's discretion. The court's decision allowed for the introduction of this evidence during the trial.

Orders