R v Martin - [2023] NZHC 2167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2022-016-1588

[2023] NZHC 2167

THE KING

v

LYNNE MAREE MARTIN

Hearing: 4 August 2023

Counsel:

S B Manning and C R Walker for Crown R M Adams for Defendant

Judgment:

14 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] The defendant is facing charges of murder and arson. The trial is scheduled to commence in Gisborne on 6 November 2023. The offences are alleged to have occurred on 25 January 2013.

[2] The Crown has made two interlocutory applications: one in respect of hearsay evidence and the other in respect of propensity evidence.

The hearsay application

[3] The Crown has filed hearsay notices in respect of an oral statement made by Russell Allison (the deceased), and written statements made by witness Clarence Collier and potential witness Hine Ngatoro, both of whom are now deceased.

R v MARTIN [2023] NZHC 2167 [14 August 2023]

[4] In respect of the deceased, the Crown intends leading evidence of the oral statement made by him to his son, John Allison (John), as set out in the formal statement made by John at [262]–[276].

[5] In respect of the deceased witness Clarence Collier, the Crown intends leading the evidence of his two written statements made to Police on 25 January 2013 and 1 February 2013.

[6] In respect of Hine Ngatoro, the Crown has filed a hearsay notice in respect of her written statement of 26 January 2013. The Crown does not seek admission of her statement and it does not consider the content to be reliable. The hearsay notice is filed on the basis that if the defendant seeks its admission into evidence, the Crown would not oppose that.

Legal principles

[7] A hearsay statement is admissible if the circumstances relating to the statement provide a reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable, and the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness.1

[8] Counsel for the defendant does not oppose the admission of the hearsay statements of the deceased or Clarence Collier. Counsel reserves her position in relation to the statement of Ms Ngatoro as to whether it will be necessary to produce that document.

[9] I am satisfied that the criteria in ss 16–18 of the Evidence Act 2006 are met, and that all three statements are admissible.

[10] The parties agree that the admissibility is subject to the ability of the trial Judge to provide a warning to the jury pursuant to s 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act in relation to reliability.

1 Evidence Act 2006, s 18.

Propensity evidence

[11] The Crown wishes to adduce two separate pieces of evidence on the basis that they are propensity evidence. The first is evidence of the defendant having previously committed two offences of maliciously damaging property by fire (an Australian equivalent to arson) relating to fires caused to two vehicles in Dubbo, Australia, to which the defendant pleaded guilty; and secondly, the defendant’s alleged…

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 R v Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2023] NZHC 2167
Case: [2023] NZHC 2167
Decision Date: 14 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin involves charges of murder and arson against the defendant, Lynne Maree Martin, with the trial set to commence on 6 November 2023. The court was asked to decide the admissibility of two types of evidence: hearsay statements from deceased individuals and propensity evidence regarding previous acts of arson by the defendant. The Crown sought to introduce hearsay statements from the deceased, Russell Allison, Clarence Collier, and Hine Ngatoro. The court found these statements admissible as they met the criteria under the Evidence Act 2006 and the trial judge could provide a warning to the jury about the reliability of the statements.

Regarding propensity evidence, the Crown wished to introduce evidence of two previous arson incidents involving the defendant. The first involved the defendant setting fire to two vehicles in Australia in 1999, for which she was convicted. The second incident involved the defendant encouraging an undercover police officer to set fire to a house in Dunedin in 2020. The defendant opposed both applications, arguing that the Australian offences were impulsive and not indicative of her character, and that the Dunedin incident did not involve any emotional upset. The court concluded that the Australian convictions were admissible as propensity evidence due to their high probative value and relevance to the issues in the case. However, the evidence regarding the Dunedin planning was declined as propensity evidence because it lacked the necessary similarities to the current charges and posed a high risk of unfair prejudice.

In summary, the court granted the Crown's application to admit hearsay evidence and the Australian convictions as propensity evidence, but declined the application to admit the Dunedin planning as propensity evidence. The court's decision focused on the relevance and probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

Orders