The Queen v SJL - [2011] NTSC 43

The Queen v SJL [2011] NTSC 43
PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
SJL

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

FILE NO:   21020072
DELIVERED:   7 March 2011
HEARING DATES:   7 March 2011
PUBLISHED TO THE PARTIES:       15 June 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Pre-trial Rulings – question of admissibility of certain admissions made by the accused to police in EROI – consideration of prejudicial effects and probative value of admissions.
Parts of EROI exercised – unfair to admit significant portion of EROI – prejudicial questioning rendered parts inadmissible.
Parts of EROI admitted – Evidence of misconduct or uncharged Acts only admissible on certain strict conditions – Crown sought to rely on this type of evidence as proof of a forensic lie, consciousness of guilt and sexual interest – such evidence is highly probative – it is not prejudicial in an impermissible sense – this material is admitted.
Brian Leslie Wills (1985) 16 A Crim 247; The Queen v Mervyn Massey [1997] 1 Qd R 484; Van Der Meer and Others v R (1988) 82 ALR 10; applied
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 ; R v Grills (1910) 11 CLR 400; R v Nieterink (1999) 76 SASR 56; R v Sakail [1993] 1 Qd R; Tully v R (2006) 230 CLR 234; referred to
R v C (1991) 59 A Crim R 46; Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461;
distinguished
HML v R [2008] 235 CLR 334; considered
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Prosecutor:   Ms Wooldridge
Accused:   Mr Baker
Solicitors:
Prosecutor:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:   Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:   BLO 1107
Number of pages:   16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v SJL [2011] NTSC 43

No. 21020072
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Prosecution

AND:

SJL

Accused

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
PRE TRIAL RULINGS
(Delivered 15 June 2011)
Introduction

On 7 March 2011 I made a number of rulings on the admissibility of certain admissions made by the accused to police. For various reasons relating to a principal Crown witness the trial did not proceed at that time. Both parties have needed to change counsel in the interim on a number of occasions. I considered in these circumstances it would be useful to forward both current counsel formal reasons for the rulings made previously prior to empanelling the jury.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the following counts:[1]
Count 1: Between 1 June 1994 and 16 August 2001, being an adult, maintained an unlawful relationship of a sexual nature with UCM, a child under the age of 16 years. The circumstances of aggravation alleged are that during the course of the relationship the accused had sexual intercourse with UCM without her consent (contrary to s 192 Criminal Code (NT)) and had unlawful sexual intercourse when UCM was under the age of…

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 SJL

Details

AGLC: The Queen v SJL [2011] NTSC 43
Case: [2011] NTSC 43
Decision Date: 07/03/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen has brought a case against SJL, raising issues regarding the admissibility of certain admissions made by the accused to police during a recorded interview. The case was heard in the higher court of the relevant jurisdiction. The central dispute involves the admissibility of specific statements made by the accused during the interview, with the Crown seeking to use them as evidence of uncharged acts, consciousness of guilt, and sexual interest, while the defence argues that parts of the recorded interview are unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded.

The court was required to determine whether certain parts of the interview, known as the EROI, could be admitted into evidence. This involved assessing whether the prejudicial effects of the admissions outweighed their probative value. The court considered the fairness of admitting significant portions of the interview, particularly given instances of prejudicial questioning by police. The Crown argued that the evidence was highly probative and not prejudicial in an impermissible sense, while the defence contended that the prejudicial nature of the questioning rendered parts of the interview inadmissible.

The court held that while some parts of the EROI were unfairly prejudicial and thus inadmissible, other parts met the strict conditions for admissibility under the Evidence Act. The court found that the Crown's evidence of misconduct or uncharged acts was highly probative and not prejudicial in an impermissible sense. Therefore, this material was admitted. The court balanced the probative value against the prejudicial effect and concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial effect, allowing it to be considered by the jury.

The court's final orders were that certain parts of the EROI were to be excluded from evidence due to prejudicial questioning, while other parts were admitted as evidence. The court emphasised the need for strict adherence to the conditions set out in the Evidence Act for the admissibility of evidence of uncharged acts, ensuring that the probative value of such evidence is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Orders