Citation: R v Cairney (No 9) [2025] NSWSC 707
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 May 2025
Judge(s): Campbell J
Background
The accused stands trial for murder following a stabbing. The prosecution sought to tender photograph 41 from a collection of 227 crime scene photographs. The photograph depicted significant bloodstaining on the rear side panel of a white utility vehicle parked near the scene, which had resulted from blood pooling on the vehicle's tray cover and overflowing down the side during subsequent rainfall.
The defence applied to exclude the photograph before it was shown to the jury. The photograph had already been admitted during a voir dire (a preliminary hearing to determine admissibility, conducted in the absence of the jury) as Exhibit KK.
The central factual context was whether the deceased was armed when he emerged from a backyard at the scene of the stabbing, which was directly relevant to the accused's self-defence argument.
Legal Issues
- Whether photograph 41 was relevant to any primary fact in dispute, or whether those facts could be proved by other means
- Whether the bloodstaining depicted in the photograph was misleading, given that rain had diluted and spread the original pool of blood
- Whether the photograph was unfairly prejudicial, given the apparent volume of blood shown
Decision
Issue 1: Relevance
Campbell J accepted the Crown's submission that the photograph was relevant to a central fact in issue. The location of the deceased's clothing and backpack, visible in the photograph through crime scene markers, was probative of whether the deceased was armed when he emerged from the backyard (at [4]-[5]). His Honour noted that the Crown is entitled to lead evidence providing a full narrative of events, regardless of whether every element of the offence is in dispute (at [6]).
The defence's argument that the same facts could be proved by other means did not constitute a sufficient reason to exclude relevant evidence (at [7]).
Issue 2: Misleading nature of the bloodstaining
Campbell J was not persuaded that the photograph was misleading. To the extent the image depicted rain-diluted blood that had overflowed from the vehicle's tray cover, that context could be explained to the jury through an agreed fact or evidence from a crime scene officer (at [8]).
Issue 3: Prejudice
His Honour rejected the submission that the photograph would be unfairly prejudicial. A jury empanelled to try a murder involving a stabbing would, in his Honour's view, be very unlikely to draw any adverse inference against the accused merely from photographs depicting blood (at [9]). To the extent any residual risk of prejudice existed, a brief direction reminding the jury not to be motivated by sympathy or prejudice, potentially amplified to address bloodstain evidence specifically, would adequately address it (at [9]).
Orders Made
- The defence's application to exclude photograph 41 of a collection of crime scene photographs from evidence is refused.
Key Takeaways
- The availability of other evidence capable of proving the same facts does not, of itself, provide a basis for excluding relevant evidence (at [7]).
- Photographic evidence that may appear misleading due to environmental conditions (here, rainfall diluting and spreading blood) need not be excluded where an adequate explanation can be provided to the jury by agreed fact or witness evidence (at [8]).
- The Supreme Court confirmed that a jury of mature adults trying a murder involving a stabbing is unlikely to be unfairly prejudiced by crime scene photographs depicting blood, particularly where standing directions against sympathy and prejudice are in place (at [9]).
- The Crown's entitlement to present a full narrative of events, beyond the bare elements of the offence charged, supported the photograph's admission as part of the crime scene evidence (at [6]).
- Residual prejudice concerns arising from graphic evidence can, in appropriate cases, be met by a targeted jury direction rather than exclusion of the evidence (at [9]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not stated
Cases
- Not stated