Watson v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 422

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0711

RICHARD JAMES WATSON
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, ASHLEY and HARPER JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 422
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Watson [2009] VSC 261 (Whelan J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Consciousness of guilt – Post offence lies and conduct – Applicant convicted of murdering wife – Applicant claimed wife killed by intruders – Applicant made various claims hypothesising about identity of person(s) responsible for murder – Prosecution alleged conduct and claims constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt – Whether Edwards direction required with respect to alleged false claims purportedly identifying responsible person(s) – Application for leave to appeal refused – R v Chang (2003) 7 VR 236, discussed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M J Croucher	Lethbridges
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WARREN CJ:

Introduction

The applicant, Richard James Watson, was convicted of murdering his wife, Anne Lorraine Watson. He was also convicted of three counts of arson — setting fire to a house and two vehicles belonging to the Watsons.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on two grounds (grounds 2 and 3), both relating to the consciousness of guilt directions given by the learned trial judge. Two other proposed grounds of appeal (ground 1 and 4) were abandoned.

The applicant also sought leave to appeal against his sentence. At the hearing of the application, the Court warned the applicant that he faced the possibility of the Court imposing a sentence that is more severe than his original sentence. The applicant then withdrew his application for leave to appeal against sentence.

For reasons that will follow, in my view the applicant fails to make out either of the two remaining proposed grounds of appeal against conviction.

Relevant facts

The applicant and his wife married in 1972. They had a daughter, Caroline, who died in 1993 due to a congenital heart defect.

Mrs Watson’s parents ran a pet food factory in Pyramid Hill, Victoria. In late 1999, Mrs Watson’s father asked the applicant to come to Pyramid Hill to assist in the running of the factory. The applicant agreed, moved to Pyramid Hill and soon became the manger of the business. But the business did not prosper. In March 2001 it was placed into administration and was eventually taken over by new owners.

The applicant made some enemies during his time at Pyramid Hill. In early 2001 Mrs Watson received a threatening letter. Police investigated the matter but the author was never identified. The applicant claimed that the he and his wife later received three further threatening letters. In June 2001 a pet food factory worker poured acid on the applicant’s car due to a dispute about overtime.

Since late 2000 the Watsons had been living in a…

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 Watson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Watson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 422
Case: [2011] VSCA 422
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watson was convicted of murdering his wife and appealed against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to certain evidence. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The key issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury in accordance with the principles set out in Edwards v The Queen, concerning the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's untruthful statements made after the commission of an offence. The prosecution argued that Watson's various claims and lies about the identity of the person(s) responsible for the murder constituted evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court examined the principles in Edwards and concluded that the trial judge had correctly assessed the relevance and admissibility of the evidence in question. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in failing to give an Edwards direction, as the evidence did not fall within the ambit of the principles in that case. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court found that the evidence in question was properly admitted as it was relevant to the issue of Watson's consciousness of guilt, rather than being used to prove the identity of the person(s) responsible for the murder. The court noted that Watson's various claims and lies were inconsistent and speculative, and did not provide a clear and coherent account of the events leading up to his wife's death. The court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the probative value of the evidence and its potential to mislead or confuse the jury. The court also noted that the jury had been properly directed on the need to consider the evidence critically and to assess its relevance and weight in light of all the other evidence in the case. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in failing to give an Edwards direction, as the evidence did not fall within the ambit of the principles in that case. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders