Citation: R v Niguidula (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 501
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 May 2023
Judge(s): Dhanji J
Background
The accused faced an indictment charging her with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and murder. Before trial, she pleaded guilty to the assault charge and, while declining to plead guilty to murder, offered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept the manslaughter plea in full satisfaction of the murder charge, and a jury was empanelled.
A fresh indictment containing only the murder count was presented. Prior to the jury's return, the accused applied to revisit an earlier evidentiary ruling concerning statements she had made, which the Crown sought to rely on as admissions. Those admissions had been ruled admissible in an earlier judgment, R v Niguidula (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 481.
The accused argued that the change in the issues at trial, brought about by her plea admitting responsibility for the act of killing, meant that two of those admissions (Admissions 4 and 5) were no longer relevant and should be excluded.
Legal Issues
- Whether a change in the issues at trial, following the accused's guilty plea to manslaughter, warranted revisiting the earlier ruling on the admissibility of Admissions 4 and 5
- Whether Admissions 4 and 5 remained relevant given that the accused's responsibility for the act of killing was no longer in dispute
- Whether, under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the probative value of Admissions 4 and 5 was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
Decision
Issue 1: Whether the earlier ruling should be revisited
Dhanji J accepted the general proposition that relevance, and therefore admissibility, depends on the matters in issue in a particular trial. Because the accused's plea had altered those issues, it was open in principle to revisit earlier admissibility rulings (at [3]).
Issue 2: Whether Admissions 4 and 5 remained relevant
With the act of killing no longer in dispute, the remaining contested issues were the accused's intent (whether she acted with an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm) and whether the partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applied (at [6]). The accused relied on expert psychiatric evidence from Dr Henderson, who opined that she suffered from borderline personality disorder and was in a dissociative state at the time of the killing. A key plank of that opinion was that the accused had no memory of the event (at [7]).
Dhanji J held that Admissions 4 and 5 were capable of suggesting the accused did, in fact, have a memory of the relevant events. Evidence of that kind was capable of undermining Dr Henderson's opinion and was therefore relevant to the substantial impairment defence (at [7]).
Issue 3: Section 137 exclusion for unfair prejudice
The accused submitted that any probative value was slight and was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the language used, in particular the repeated phrase "You son of a bitch." Dhanji J acknowledged some prejudice in that language and noted he had excluded other admissions on similar grounds where the repetition added little probative value. However, in the specific context of Admissions 4 and 5, he found that the prejudicial effect did not rise to a level of any significance, and the probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (at [8]-[9]).
Orders Made
- The application to exclude Admissions 4 and 5 is refused.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that the admissibility of evidence, including admissions, depends on the issues actually in dispute at trial, and a material change in those issues can warrant revisiting earlier rulings (at [3]).
- A guilty plea to a lesser offence does not necessarily render earlier admissions irrelevant: where those admissions bear on remaining contested issues, such as intent or a partial defence, they may retain admissibility (at [5]-[7]).
- Under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the court assessed probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice in the specific context of each admission, rather than treating prejudicial language as automatically decisive (at [8]-[9]).
- Expert psychiatric opinion on substantial impairment can expand the scope of relevant evidence: material capable of undermining the factual premises of an expert's opinion is itself relevant to the issues at trial (at [7]).
- Exclusion of some admissions on prejudice grounds does not compel exclusion of others involving similar language; the analysis remains context-specific and turns on the comparative weight of probative value and prejudicial danger in each instance (at [8]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) , s 23A
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137
Cases
- R v Niguidula (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 481