Citation: R v MEYN, John Michael (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1467
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 November 2012
Judge: Beech-Jones J
Background
The accused stood trial in the Supreme Court charged with the murder of the deceased, who was found in a granny flat. The Crown alleged the accused bashed and strangled her. Key issues at trial included whether the accused formed the requisite intent for murder, given his alcohol consumption, and whether he acted in self-defence.
Several subsidiary factual disputes were also live. These included whether the accused knew the deceased was dead when he left the premises, and whether he admitted killing her during a subsequent telephone call to a friend. Evidence was expected to show he told that friend he had placed a towel over the deceased.
In this interlocutory ruling, the court was asked to rule on the admissibility of six crime scene photographs of the deceased before they were tendered through a detective witness.
Legal Issues
- Whether six crime scene photographs of the deceased should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995
- Whether the probative value of those photographs was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused
Decision
The Crown did not press for admission of four of the six photographs (numbered 31, 36, 37 and 39) during argument, leaving only photographs 24 and 25 in dispute. Photograph 24 showed the deceased in situ covered by a towel with a bloodstain near her head. Photograph 25 was a closer view capable of revealing possible signs of strangulation injuries.
Beech-Jones J found that both photographs carried significant probative value. They were relevant to the subsidiary factual disputes, including the accused's claim he did not know the deceased was dead when he left, and his reported reference to placing a towel over her. Beyond those issues, the photographs also assisted the jury in assessing the self-defence claim by showing the state and position of the deceased's body when the accused departed.
The court acknowledged that the photographs carried some potential for prejudice, given that they depicted a deceased person in distressing circumstances. However, Beech-Jones J assessed that prejudice as relatively limited, noting the images were not of the more gruesome kind sometimes encountered in criminal trials.
Weighing probative value against potential prejudice, the court concluded the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the significant probative value of the two photographs. Accordingly, both were ruled admissible.
Orders Made
- Photographs 24 and 25 to be admitted into evidence at the relevant time during trial.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995, a court must exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant; the section does not require exclusion merely because some prejudice exists.
- The Supreme Court found that crime scene photographs can carry significant probative value where they are directly relevant to contested factual issues, including disputed statements by the accused and live self-defence claims.
- The potential for a jury to react emotionally to distressing images is a recognised form of unfair prejudice, but its weight varies with the nature and content of the images in question.
- Where photographs are not especially gruesome, and their probative value is substantial across multiple contested issues, the threshold for exclusion under s 137 is not met.
- The Crown's concession on four of the six photographs illustrates that s 137 objections may partly succeed, with courts conducting photograph-by-photograph analysis rather than ruling on a bundle as a whole.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment.