Citation: R v Wayne Rodney Schneider (No 3) [2010] NSWDC 9
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 February 2010
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ
Background
The accused stood trial for matters connected to a shooting that occurred on 11 February 2006. Shortly after the shooting, he became aware through workplace rumours and friends that he was a suspect. Although arrangements were initially made for him to surrender, he instead fled and took steps to conceal his whereabouts.
The accused remained at large for approximately eighteen months before voluntarily contacting a South Australian lawyer, surrendering to South Australian police, and then returning to New South Wales to hand himself in. He was granted bail throughout this process.
The Crown sought to place evidence of the accused's flight before the jury as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. The accused opposed that course, relying on explanations for both his initial flight and his continued absence.
Legal Issues
- Whether evidence of the accused's flight was admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt
- Whether the accused's explanation for his continued absence, which involved inflammatory and inaccurate media coverage, was credible
- Whether the probative value of the flight evidence outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice, including the prejudice that would arise from the accused having to present his explanation to the jury
- Whether evidence of the accused's membership of the Hell's Angels outlaw motorcycle gang was admissible
Decision
Berman SC DCJ accepted that the accused's explanation for his initial flight was not credible, and would ordinarily have allowed the Crown to call that evidence. However, the judge drew a clear distinction between the initial flight and the accused's continued absence. On that latter question, the court found it could not exclude the possibility that inflammatory and inaccurate newspaper articles had contributed to the accused's decision to remain in hiding.
The articles in question described the shooting as connected to a "turf war between Sydney's outlaw motorcycle gangs" and referred to a "spray of bullets," neither of which was accurate. The court noted that the accused, knowing these descriptions were false, could reasonably have formed a concern that inaccurate publicity would prejudice any jury against him. The court was not satisfied that the articles played no part in his continued absence.
This finding brought the court to the central balancing exercise. Admitting flight evidence would require the accused to present his explanation, which in turn would draw the jury's attention to the prejudicial media coverage. That coverage, combined with the readily accessible internet search results concerning the accused, created a meaningful risk that jurors might conduct their own research despite directions from the bench.
The court also noted that the probative value of flight evidence in this case was reduced by two factors: first, that such evidence can almost always be explained by a fear of unjust conviction; and second, that the accused had ultimately surrendered voluntarily rather than being apprehended. Weighing these considerations together, the court concluded that the risk of unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value, and excluded the evidence.
Orders Made
- The Crown was not permitted to adduce evidence of the accused's flight.
- The Crown was not permitted (at that stage of proceedings) to adduce evidence that the accused was a member of the Hell's Angels. The court noted this ruling might need to be revisited later in the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court drew a meaningful distinction between an accused's initial flight and continued absence, holding that each may require separate analysis when assessing the admissibility of flight evidence.
- Where an accused advances a credible explanation for remaining at large, and that explanation would necessarily expose the jury to significantly prejudicial material, the court must weigh the probative value of the flight evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice arising from the rebuttal evidence itself.
- Flight evidence carries inherently limited probative force where the accused ultimately surrendered voluntarily, rather than being located and arrested through police efforts.
- Inaccurate and inflammatory media coverage, assessed from the perspective of the accused who knew the coverage was false, can ground a credible explanation for an accused's decision not to surrender.
- The risk of jurors conducting independent internet research, despite judicial directions, is a legitimate factor in the unfair prejudice analysis, particularly where significant publicity is easily discoverable online.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata provided.