On 3 March 2021, Blake is tried in the District Court of NSW under s 39...

Transcribed Image Text:

On 3 March 2021, Blake is tried in the District Court of NSW under s 39 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): using poison to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm. The prosecution case is that on about 12 August 2020, Blake poisoned a work colleague, Avon, at the premises of ACME Ltd (a manufacturer of industrial chemicals), where they both worked. Avon was found unconscious on the floor of the staff canteen and taken to hospital where he spent several weeks recovering. He was diagnosed with being poisoned by a relatively rare chemical compound called "Voxil" (which is manufactured by ACME). At the hearing in the District Court: (a) The Prosecution calls Jenna, an employee of ACME Ltd, who works in the canteen. She gives evidence-in-chief that Blake was in the canteen on 14 August 2020, and said to her, "Avon's always patronising me. I've fixed that." In cross-examination, Jenna is asked whether she thought that Blake was drunk when she spoke to him. She replies, "Yes. Very drunk." On the voir dire, at which the judge determines that the jury can be present, Blake denies making this admission. (b) The Prosecution seeks to adduce evidence that on four other occasions in the last three years there have been unsolved poisoning incidents at ACME Ltd. None were fatal. Three of these were in the canteen (two from Voxil and the other one was caused by an unknown substance) and one was in the chemistry lab, involving arsenic (which is stored there). Blake was in the building when each of these incidents occurred. The Prosecution seeks to adduce this evidence by way of an "Incident/injury Report", compiled by ACME Ltd's compliance and legal team, based upon hospital toxicology results provided to them. Over defence objection, this is admitted. (c) The Prosecution calls Villa, an employee of ACME Ltd, who says that on 12 August 2020, he saw someone "playing with Avon's plate" in the canteen, whilst Avon's attention was diverted. Villa is asked to identify who this person was, and he points out Blake, whom he knows from work. During his examination-in-chief, he also accepts that later on 12 August 2020, a friend had suggested to him that it may have been Blake, so he looked up Blake on Facebook. When asked by the Judge if a parade was conducted, the Prosecution explains that it had not been conducted, because it was not necessary, and also because at the time of Blake's arrest, they could not find any other men that looked like him. Over defence objection, the judge rules Villa's evidence to be admissible. (d) In cross-examination by the defence, Villa gives evidence that he has never known Blake to be violent or engage in illegal activity. 3| Page March 2023 In re-examination, Villa is asked by the Prosecution: "Isn't it the case that you and Blake stole some liquor from the staff canteen last year together?" Villa says that he doesn't want to answer that question (and the defence objects), but the judge immediately insists that he do so. Villa says, "Yes. It is true." (e) Blake doesn't give evidence. The judge: (i) Directs that the jury that they can infer from Blake's failure to give evidence that had he given evidence in his own defence, it would not have assisted his case. (ii) Says to the jury: Your task is to decide whether the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that each of the elements has been made out. This is different to there being no doubt - a certain amount of doubt is acceptable. But not a reasonable doubt. Which is like saying that there you are pretty sure of guilt. It is also a higher threshold than the balance of probabilities. Discuss the evidentiary issues that arise out of the above. On 3 March 2021, Blake is tried in the District Court of NSW under s 39 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): using poison to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm. The prosecution case is that on about 12 August 2020, Blake poisoned a work colleague, Avon, at the premises of ACME Ltd (a manufacturer of industrial chemicals), where they both worked. Avon was found unconscious on the floor of the staff canteen and taken to hospital where he spent several weeks recovering. He was diagnosed with being poisoned by a relatively rare chemical compound called "Voxil" (which is manufactured by ACME). At the hearing in the District Court: (a) The Prosecution calls Jenna, an employee of ACME Ltd, who works in the canteen. She gives evidence-in-chief that Blake was in the canteen on 14 August 2020, and said to her, "Avon's always patronising me. I've fixed that." In cross-examination, Jenna is asked whether she thought that Blake was drunk when she spoke to him. She replies, "Yes. Very drunk." On the voir dire, at which the judge determines that the jury can be present, Blake denies making this admission. (b) The Prosecution seeks to adduce evidence that on four other occasions in the last three years there have been unsolved poisoning incidents at ACME Ltd. None were fatal. Three of these were in the canteen (two from Voxil and the other one was caused by an unknown substance) and one was in the chemistry lab, involving arsenic (which is stored there). Blake was in the building when each of these incidents occurred. The Prosecution seeks to adduce this evidence by way of an "Incident/injury Report", compiled by ACME Ltd's compliance and legal team, based upon hospital toxicology results provided to them. Over defence objection, this is admitted. (c) The Prosecution calls Villa, an employee of ACME Ltd, who says that on 12 August 2020, he saw someone "playing with Avon's plate" in the canteen, whilst Avon's attention was diverted. Villa is asked to identify who this person was, and he points out Blake, whom he knows from work. During his examination-in-chief, he also accepts that later on 12 August 2020, a friend had suggested to him that it may have been Blake, so he looked up Blake on Facebook. When asked by the Judge if a parade was conducted, the Prosecution explains that it had not been conducted, because it was not necessary, and also because at the time of Blake's arrest, they could not find any other men that looked like him. Over defence objection, the judge rules Villa's evidence to be admissible. (d) In cross-examination by the defence, Villa gives evidence that he has never known Blake to be violent or engage in illegal activity. 3| Page March 2023 In re-examination, Villa is asked by the Prosecution: "Isn't it the case that you and Blake stole some liquor from the staff canteen last year together?" Villa says that he doesn't want to answer that question (and the defence objects), but the judge immediately insists that he do so. Villa says, "Yes. It is true." (e) Blake doesn't give evidence. The judge: (i) Directs that the jury that they can infer from Blake's failure to give evidence that had he given evidence in his own defence, it would not have assisted his case. (ii) Says to the jury: Your task is to decide whether the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that each of the elements has been made out. This is different to there being no doubt - a certain amount of doubt is acceptable. But not a reasonable doubt. Which is like saying that there you are pretty sure of guilt. It is also a higher threshold than the balance of probabilities. Discuss the evidentiary issues that arise out of the above.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The example scenario raises the following evidentiary problems a Jennas claim that Blake confessed t... View the full answer