Citation: R v Edwards (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1820
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 October 2019
Judge: R A Hulme J
Background
The accused stood trial for the murder of his wife, Ms Sharon Edwards, who disappeared on the night of 14 to 15 March 2015. The Crown's case was that the accused killed her. The accused did not concede that she was dead and contended that the marriage, while imperfect, had continued.
In the lead-up to trial, the Crown sought to adduce a substantial body of prior representations made by Ms Edwards to friends and family. Those representations spanned from late 2013 to 14 March 2015 and were recorded in text messages, Facebook messages, and witness statements. The accused's counsel objected to a significant portion of that material.
The objections focused primarily on representations made before 1 March 2015. Counsel for the accused accepted that representations from 1 March 2015 onwards were relevant, but contested the admissibility of earlier material on grounds of relevance and unfair prejudice.
Legal Issues
- Whether the prior representations of the deceased were admissible under ss 65(2)(b) and 66A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which provide first-hand hearsay exceptions for representations by persons who are not available to give evidence.
- Whether representations remote in time were relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act, given the accused's claim he had no knowledge of the state of the marriage or the affair until early March 2015.
- Whether the probative value of any admissible representations was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether certain passages in witness statements constituted specific representations by the deceased or were inadmissible summaries and opinions derived from multiple conversations over time.
Decision
Hulme J ruled that representations falling within six categories were admissible across the entire period from late 2013 to 14 March 2015. Those categories were: the state of the marriage; Ms Edwards' attitude to the marriage; her attitude to her relationship with the accused; her attitude to her relationship with Billy Mills; her involvement in current social activities and anticipation of future events such as holidays and a school reunion; and the joy she expressed about her new granddaughter.
On the relevance of the marriage and relationship evidence, the court reasoned that the breakdown of the marriage, Ms Edwards' affair with Mr Mills, and her communications of those matters to the accused were probative of motive and context. The accused's claim that he had no knowledge of these matters until March 2015 was directly contested by the Crown. The court found no appreciable unfair prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of this evidence.
On the question of whether Ms Edwards had "simply disappeared" voluntarily, the court held that representations about her relationship with Mr Mills, her grandchild, and her planned future events were capable of demonstrating she had reasons to live and was unlikely to have disappeared voluntarily. The sustained nature of those representations across an extended period added to their probative force on that issue.
Regarding the witness statement objections, the court drew a clear line. Where a passage in a witness's statement was not an account of a specific representation by Ms Edwards but was instead a summary or opinion derived from multiple conversations over time, that material was inadmissible. Where a passage could be identified as recording a specific representation, even if only approximately tied to a period of time, it was admissible. The parties were directed to resolve remaining disputes about specific passages between themselves, with liberty to return to the court.
Orders Made
• Prior representations made by Ms Sharon Edwards in relation to specific topics are admissible
Key Takeaways
- Under ss 65(2)(b) and 66A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), there was no dispute that first-hand hearsay exceptions applied to the deceased's representations; the admissibility contest turned entirely on relevance and unfair prejudice.
- Prior representations by a deceased person about the state of a relationship can be relevant across an extended period where the accused disputes his knowledge of the relationship's deterioration, and where that knowledge goes to motive.
- A deceased's expressions of future plans and emotional attachments are capable of being relevant to the inference that she did not voluntarily disappear, making those representations probative even where they predate the events in question by many months.
- Witness statements that record a witness's own summary or opinion drawn from multiple conversations with the deceased, rather than specific representations the deceased made, are inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
- Applying Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334, the Supreme Court confirmed that evidence going to the relationship between an accused and a victim assists a jury in deciding guilt on a proper factual foundation rather than in a "semi-vacuum."
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 65(2)(b), 66A, 67, 137
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 143
Cases
- Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334; [1970] HCA 17