Citation: Regina v Hatfield [1999] NSWSC 998
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 30 September 1999
Judge(s): Michael Grove J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of her husband, who died from gunshot wounds sustained on the night of 19-20 April 1985. Police were called to the matrimonial home in Maroubra after the accused reported finding her husband shot. A .22 calibre rifle, silencer, and magazine were later recovered from waters near Long Bay. The charge was not preferred until June 1997, following renewed police inquiries prompted by reports that the accused had made alleged confessions to two individuals.
The 12-year gap between the death and the charge meant that a number of physical exhibits had been lost. These included the accused's clothing, the deceased's clothing and blanket, the recovered rifle and silencer, and a bloodstained glass examined at the time of the original investigation. Records relating to counselling sessions attended by a key prosecution witness were also unavailable.
The accused applied for a permanent stay of proceedings, arguing that the loss of these materials denied her a real opportunity to establish her innocence and made a fair trial impossible.
Legal Issues
- Whether the loss of physical exhibits, including clothing and the recovered firearm, rendered a fair trial impossible.
- Whether the unavailability of counselling records relating to a prosecution witness further undermined the fairness of any trial.
- Whether, taken together or separately, those circumstances justified the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to permanently stay the proceedings.
Decision
Grove J refused the application. His Honour approached the question as one of foresight: the jurisdiction to stay proceedings requires a determination that a fair trial cannot be had, not merely that evidentiary disadvantages exist. That standard is distinct from the retrospective assessment applied on appeal, where a court considers whether a completed trial was in fact unfair.
On the physical exhibits, Grove J found that each item's absence, while regrettable, did not inevitably preclude a fair trial. The Brno rifle could not be proved to be the murder weapon in any event, so its loss did not prejudice the accused in a decisive way. The blanket and clothing carried some potential significance in relation to gunshot residue evidence, but the Crown was not asserting that residue was found on the accused's clothing; the accused's position was therefore not materially worsened by the loss. His Honour also noted that the presumptive blood test result on the accused's dressing gown was, in his view, highly vulnerable to rejection at trial if objected to.
On the counselling records, Grove J found it unnecessary to elaborate at length, having already addressed that issue earlier in the judgment. The absence of those records did not, on the material before the court, establish that a fair trial could not occur.
Reviewing all circumstances in combination, Grove J concluded that he was not persuaded the matters, whether considered individually or together, justified a determination that a fair trial was impossible. The inherent protections of the trial process remained available, including the trial judge's power to exclude or reject improperly tendered evidence.
Orders Made
- Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the jurisdiction to permanently stay criminal proceedings requires the court to determine prospectively that a fair trial cannot be had, which is a higher threshold than the retrospective question of whether a completed trial was actually unfair.
- Loss of physical exhibits does not automatically entitle an accused to a permanent stay. The court assesses each item's significance individually and collectively, considering whether the loss materially prejudices the accused's ability to meet the Crown case.
- Where the Crown itself cannot prove a key item of lost evidence (here, the rifle) was the murder weapon, the accused's inability to prove it was not the weapon does not create an unfairness the court is required to remedy by a stay.
- Evidentiary vulnerabilities in the Crown case, such as the susceptibility of certain test results to exclusion, are matters that can be addressed by the trial judge, and their existence reinforces that a fair trial remains achievable.
- A permanent stay is a remedy of last resort. The court expressed that its refusal should not be read as treating the loss of exhibits as insignificant, but the circumstances did not reach the threshold required.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
- Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada)
Cases:
- Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
- Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23
- R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592
- R v Tolmie (CCA, unreported, 7 December 1994)
- R v McCarthy (CCA, unreported, 12 August 1994)
- R v La [1997] 2 SCR (Canada) 680
- R v Carosella [1997] 1 SCR (Canada) 80
- Crawford v Bitar (Supreme Court of South Australia, 7 August 1987)
- Duncombe-Wall v Police (Supreme Court of South Australia, 2 July 1998)
- Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency v Bourke (Supreme Court of South Australia, 16 April 1999)