Woods v Eaton

Case [2009] NTSC 49

Woods v Eaton [2009] NTSC 49

PARTIES:  WOODS, Charmaine Suzanne
v
EATON, Donald John
TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
FILE NO:  NO JA 18 OF 2008 (20807919)
PARTIES:  WOODS, Danielle Fenton
v
EATON, Donald John
TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY
EXERCISING APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
FILE NO:  NO JA 19 OF 2008 (20810833)
DELIVERED:  18 SEPTEMBER 2009
HEARING DATES:  24 AUGUST 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  REEVES J
APPEAL FROM:  COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
ALICE SPRINGS
CATCHWORDS: 

APPEAL
Justices Appeal – new evidence – discretion to admit – principles to be
applied – whether new evidence likely to be credible – s 176A(1)(a) Justices
Act
(NT).

Justices Appeal – new evidence – discretion to admit – principles to be applied – whether reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence – s 176A(1)(b) Justices Act (NT).

Justices Act (NT), s 176A(1), s 176A(2), s 176A(3)

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Arnhem Aircraft Engineering Pty Ltd
(1987) 47 NTR 8
Smith v Torney (1984) 29 NTR 31
Bates v Haymon (1998) 90 FLR 55
McCarthy v Trenerry [1999] NTSC 29
Clark v Trenerry [1999] NTSC 17
Pagett v Hales [2000] NTSC 35
Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50
North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 185 CLR

595

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:  T Berkley
Respondent:  G McMaster

Solicitors:

Appellant:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:  B
Judgment ID Number:  Rev 0901
Number of pages:  19
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Woods v Eaton [2009] NTSC 49

No JA 18 of 2008 (20807919)

BETWEEN:

CHARMAINE SUZANNE WOODS

Appellant

AND:

DONALD JOHN EATON

Respondent

No JA 19 of 2008 (20810833)

BETWEEN:

DANIELLE FENTON WOODS

Appellant

AND:

DONALD JOHN EATON

Respondent

CORAM:  REEVES J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered 18 September 2009)

Introduction

  1. Charmaine Suzanne Woods is the mother of Danielle Fenton Woods. On 2 September 2008, both mother and daughter were convicted of assault in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs. Ms Charmaine Woods was convicted on two counts – one count of common assault and one count of

aggravated assault – and Ms Danielle Woods was convicted on one count of
aggravated assault. These convictions arose out of two separate incidents
that occurred on 2 November 2007 at Alice Springs, both involving a Ms
Ayla Laruffa.

  1. These two appeals each began as appeals against the Woods’ convictions. However, at the outset of the hearing before me, Mr Berkley, for the Woods, sought to tender evidence in the appeals and also sought leave to amend both notices of appeal to add a new ground in each to the following effect:

    “the findings of guilt against the appellant be vacated and the matter
    remitted to the Court of Summary…

Continue reading Woods v Eaton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woods v Eaton [2009] NTSC 49
Case
[2009] NTSC 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woods v Eaton involves an appeal against convictions for animal cruelty by Charmaine Woods and Danielle Woods. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in admitting fresh evidence and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing this evidence. The Court of Appeal found that the fresh evidence was credible and that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing it. The Woods had relied on affidavits from their solicitors to demonstrate that they had made reasonable efforts to locate the witness, Telena Booth, and that they had not been aware of her whereabouts until shortly before the hearing. The Court of Appeal accepted that the Woods had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing Booth's evidence and allowed the appeal.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the trial judge erred in admitting the fresh evidence and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing it. The Court of Appeal considered the statutory provisions governing the admission of fresh evidence and the common law principles relating to the timing of the production of evidence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the fresh evidence and that the Woods had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing it. The Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence was credible and that the Woods had made reasonable efforts to locate the witness and produce her evidence in a timely manner.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the fresh evidence was credible because it was consistent with other evidence in the case and because the witness had provided a statutory declaration attesting to its truth. The Court of Appeal also noted that the Woods had made reasonable efforts to locate the witness and produce her evidence in a timely manner. The Court of Appeal held that the Woods had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing the evidence because they had not been aware of the witness's whereabouts until shortly before the hearing and because they had made reasonable efforts to locate her once they became aware of her potential relevance to the case. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the fresh evidence and that the Woods had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing it.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the findings of guilt against the Woods, quashed the convictions and sentences based thereon, and ordered a retrial. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the parties be heard on the question of costs of the appeal, the initial hearing before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the costs of the rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For these reasons, on a prima facie basis, I consider this fresh evidence is likely to be credible. Beyond that, like Mildren J in Pagett v Hales (see at [46]), I do not consider I should make any further comment on the credibility of the fresh evidence when there is a real prospect that matter will have to be determined by the magistrate who rehears these matters. Is there a reasonable explanation for failing to adduce Ms Booth’s evidence below? The second specific issue that arises for consideration under s 176A is whether there is a reasonable explanation for the Woods failing to produce Ms Booth’s evidence at the hearing before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The appellants relied upon two affidavits to put forward their reasonable explanation – one by Mr Goldflam, the solicitor who acted on behalf of Ms Charmaine Woods, and the other by Mr Banbury, the solicitor who acted on behalf of Ms Danielle Woods. In his affidavit, Mr Banbury deposes to the fact that he was aware that Ms Booth was a potential material witness in the proceedings after he took over the conduct of the file on 15 July 2008. He says in his affidavit that he recalled speaking to Ms Danielle Woods and asking her about Ms Booth’s whereabouts. He says: “I recall Danielle Woods saying she didn’t know how to contact Telena, she did not have her phone number and that she was somewhere up near Borroloola … I recall Danielle Woods saying she expected to hear from Telena”. Later in his affidavit, Mr Banbury says that on the Friday before the hearing, which was to commence on 1 September 2008, Ms Danielle Woods informed him that: “Telena Booth had not contacted her and she thought that Telena In his affidavit, Mr Goldflam deposes to the fact that he allocated the file in relation to Ms Danielle Woods’ matter to Mr Banbury and he undertook the conduct of the file in relation to Ms Charmaine Woods’ matter. He says in his affidavit that: “When I first conferred with the appellant Charmaine Woods about Booth’s whereabouts. The appellant further instructed me that she did not know of anyone she could call to find out where Telena Booth was and that the Woods family had attempted to ring Telena Booth’s mobile telephone without success. The appellant further instructed me that she did not know if or when Telena Booth would return to Alice Springs or resume contact with the Woods family.” these proceedings a few days before the hearing, she instructed me that she believed Danielle Woods’ friend Telena Booth was living in the Later in his affidavit, Mr Goldflam makes a frank concession formed with the benefit of hindsight that: “I misjudged the exculpatory significance of Telena Booth in the context of the case as a whole. I did not fully Elsewhere in his affidavit, Mr Goldflam gives details of his first contact with Ms Telena Booth on 9 February 2009 and the circumstances in which he managed to obtain the statutory declaration from her which she subsequently signed on 4 March 2008 (sic 2009).

Decision

Reasons for decision

For these reasons, I consider the Woods have provided two separate reasonable explanations for their failure to adduce the evidence of Ms Booth before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Conclusion These appeals should therefore be allowed. The findings of guilt against the Woods should be set aside, and the convictions and sentences based thereon should be quashed. I so order. I also order that there be a retrial of the I will hear the parties on the question of costs of this appeal, the initial hearing before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the costs of the rehearing I have ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.