Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Rolfe (No 8)

The Queen v Rolfe (No 8)

Case [2022] NTSC 11 22 February 2022

Admissibility of Evidence

State of Mind

Continuity of State of Mind

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:The Queen v Rolfe (No 8) [2022] NTSC 11
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

ROLFE, Zachary

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21942050
DELIVERED:  22 February 2022
HEARING DATE:  31 January 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Burns J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:P M Strickland SC with S Callan SC and J Poole
Accused:J D Edwardson QC with L Officer
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Tindall Gask Bentley
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Bur2203
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Rolfe (No 8) [2022] NTSC 11

No. 21942050
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

ZACHARY ROLFE

CORAM: BURNS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 22 February 2022)
Introduction

On 7 February 2022 I ruled inadmissible two text messages which the Crown proposed leading as part of the evidence at the trial of the accused. These are my reasons for that ruling. The Crown proposed leading evidence of the following text messages found on the mobile telephone of the accused after he was arrested:
(a) On 28 February 2019: “Alice Springs sucks haha The Good thing is it’s like the Wild West and fuck all rules in the job really…but it’s a shit hole. Good to start here coz of the volume of work but will be good to leave.”
(b) On 30 July 2019: “We have this small team in Alice, IRT, immediate response team. We’re not full-time, just get called up from Gd’s for high risk jobs, it’s a sweet gig, just get to do cowboy stuff with no rules…”.
On 20 January 2022 I rejected a submission by the accused that these text messages were inadmissible as having been obtained by illegality or impropriety: see The Queen v Rolfe (No 7) [2022] NTSC 1 (‘Rolfe No 7’). In doing so, I observed that the reasoning process in which the jury would need to engage in order to utilise the contents of those messages as evidence against the accused appeared to be tendency reasoning. Subsequently, on 29 January 2022 the accused renewed his objection to the material on the basis that it is tendency evidence for the purposes of s 97 (1) of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (‘the ENULA’) and it does not possess significant probative value.
The Crown submitted that it did not propose leading evidence of the contents of the text messages as tendency evidence, and as such the tendency provisions of the ENULA do not apply. The Crown submitted that the evidence would be led to prove the state of mind of the accused at the time that the messages were sent and that the jury would be entitled to infer from the fact that the accused had a particular state of mind at the time he sent those text messages, that he had the same state of mind at the time of the alleged offence on 9 November…

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 Rolfe (No 8)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Rolfe (No 8) [2022] NTSC 11
Case: [2022] NTSC 11
Decision Date: 22 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Rolfe (No 8) was a case in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, where the central issue was the admissibility of text messages from the accused, Zachary Rolfe, as evidence in his trial. The Crown sought to introduce these messages to demonstrate Rolfe's state of mind prior to an incident on 9 November 2019, arguing that they reflected a disregard for established police rules, particularly regarding the use of force. The primary legal question revolved around whether these text messages constituted tendency evidence under the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) and whether they possessed significant probative value.

The court considered whether the text messages could support an inference that Rolfe had a specific state of mind at the time of sending them, and if that state of mind could be reasonably inferred to have continued until the date of the incident. The court examined case law, including Elomar v The Queen and Davies v The Queen, to understand the distinction between tendency evidence and direct evidence of state of mind. Ultimately, the court found that the text messages did not clearly establish Rolfe's state of mind regarding the police rules, nor could the jury reasonably infer that any state of mind evidenced by the messages persisted until the incident. Consequently, the court ruled the text messages inadmissible, noting that the evidence was neither clear enough nor relevant enough to support the Crown's case.

Orders