R v Maybir (No 7)

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: On 12 November 2015 I made a ruling that certain evidence already adduced as "context evidence" could be relied upon by the Crown as "tendency evidence" pursuant to s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). I gave abbreviated reasons at the time but the following are my more detailed reasons for the ruling.

The Crown case

1. [2]

   The accused is on trial in respect of a number of assaults upon a 7 year-old child and in respect of the murder of that child. The events in question occurred during the course of a 4 month relationship of the accused with the deceased's mother, Ms Kayla James.

2. [3]

   The Crown case is to the effect that Ms James was a caring mother who did not mistreat the deceased or his two younger siblings. However, that changed after her relationship with the accused commenced in January 2013. He persuaded her that there was a need to adopt a stricter regime of discipline with the children which included physical punishments. The Crown case is that she came under his thrall and she endeavoured to comply with his disciplinary philosophy.

3. [4]

   Ms James has been sentenced for a number of acts of violence towards the deceased. She pleaded guilty to those offences and also to manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence. The latter was based upon her failure to obtain medical attention for the deceased after he suffered a substantial head injury on the morning of 20 May 2013. He was found dead early the following morning.

4. [5]

   The Crown case is that the accused was responsible for administering harsh physical punishments to the children, particularly to the deceased. A great many injuries, including bruises, lacerations and broken bones, both aged and recent, were found on the body of the deceased during an autopsy examination. There is expert evidence to the effect that they cannot be explained by childhood accidents and are indicative of the deceased having been subjected to a considerable degree of physical violence and neglect over some period of time.

5. [6]

   The indictment contains 14 counts, the details of which are as follows:

6. [7]

   The Crown has also led evidence of a number of other acts of the accused towards the deceased which involved physical or psychological abuse.

The defence case

1. [8]

   The defence case is that the injuries that caused the death of the deceased were sustained as a result of a mishap when a "wrestling" manoeuvre went wrong and the deceased accidently fell to the floor.

2. [9]

   The accused's response to most of the assault charges to which he has pleaded not guilty is to the effect that the incidents alleged did not in fact occur. In relation to the assaults in counts 6 and 7 he contends that the acts were incidental to a playful wrestle with the deceased.

3. [10]

   The defence case also involves an assertion that it was Ms James who was responsible for the vast majority of the physical abuse of the deceased.

The asserted tendencies

1. [11]

   The Crown asserts that the accused had a tendency to act in a particular way, namely:

2. [12]

   I have already ruled that certain evidence by the accused's former wife, Ms Naomi Brealey, may be used as evidence to establish these asserted tendencies: R v Maybir (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1737. At the time of making that ruling, reference was made by counsel to evidence of Ms James that would also be relied upon by the Crown to establish the tendencies. As that evidence was accepted to be admissible as "context" evidence, it was led on the basis that I would rule later as to whether the Crown would also be able to rely on it for tendency purposes.

3. [13]

   When submissions were made in relation to this tendency issue on 12 November 2015, the Crown indicated that it was also relying upon the evidence to establish a tendency of the accused to have a particular state of mind, namely:

The evidence relied upon to establish the tendencies

1. [14]

   The Crown set out the evidence in the form of the following table which I have slightly modified to give each item a unique number and to avoid identification of children:

2. [15]

   Items 1(a) and 6(b) in the table were the subject of the earlier ruling (R v Maybir (No 2)) and were allowed to be relied upon in support of tendencies (a) and (b).

3. [16]

   The Crown clarified that items 2 and 8-10 were relied upon specifically in relation to the tendencies (c) and (d).

Reasons

1. [17]

   Mr Brady accepted that because the evidence was already before the jury he could not realistically submit that there was a danger of unfair prejudice. That was an appropriate concession to make, with respect, but I have nonetheless borne in mind that I will be giving the jury the usual sort of directions that are required in relation to tendency evidence. (In this regard I am mindful of the suggested directions in the Criminal Trials Bench Book).

2. [18]

   An exception in relation to that concession was that in relation to items 8 to 10 the jury could misuse the evidence by reasoning that "if someone got angry enough to do that, they would get angry enough to seriously hurt [the deceased]". Rather than being a matter of prejudice, in my view this describes the probative value. The jury has evidence that the accused assaulted the deceased on a number of occasions but not to the extent of causing really serious bodily harm. But then they have the evidence that the deceased was, on the Crown case, violently assaulted by the accused on the morning of 20 May 2013. That would seem to be out of keeping with the previous levels of assault. However, in light of evidence which shows the degree of disdain, dislike and disrespect the accused had towards the deceased, and his ready resort to anger towards the deceased, the events of 20 May 2013 become significantly more explicable. It would, as the Crown Prosecutor pointed out, also serve to support a rejection of the accused's version of "accident".

3. [19]

   Mr Brady argued that some of the items were significantly different to some of the alleged incidents the indictment. I do not think that is a valid criticism. It is the overall force of the evidence that must be looked at. Moreover, s 97 requires that regard be had not only to the evidence "by itself" but also to "other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence" in the assessment of whether it has "significant probative value".

4. [20]

   In relation to items 14 to 18, Mr Brady argued that they did not establish any tendency because what is described is a result rather than an act. Further, he submitted that there was a "competing inference", namely that Ms James caused those injuries.

5. [21]

   Items 14 to 18 as they appear in the above table do describe a result but what the Crown is relying upon is the jury drawing an inference that the accused, in some fashion, caused each of those injuries. Whilst the Crown is somewhat hamstrung in alleging precisely how he did so, it relies upon the general thrust of the evidence, mainly of Ms James, that the accused behaved violently towards the deceased. Moreover, it was put to Ms James that she caused these injuries. Ms James denied such propositions. In these circumstances, as the Crown Prosecutor pointed out, the only other "candidate" is the accused. Accordingly, in my view these items are capable of being regarded by the jury as further evidence that the accused had either or both of tendencies (a) and (b).

6. [22]

   In my view, the combined effect of each of the items (aside from item 2 and 8 to 10) has powerful force in establishing tendencies (a) and (b) which, in turn, would have substantial probative value in making out the charge of murder as well as the various assault charges to which the accused has pleaded not guilty. This is particularly the case in relation to item 1(b) which is powerful evidence in connection with the finding at autopsy of bruising and other injury indicative of the deceased having been grabbed by the face in a manner consistent with that described by Ms James and Ms Brealey.

7. [23]

   Items 2 and 8 to 10, considered in conjunction with the other items, have powerful probative value in relation to the asserted tendencies (c) and (d). The manner in which I propose to direct the jury will safeguard adequately, in my view, against any risk of misuse.

Conclusion

1. [24]

   For the foregoing reasons I ruled that the evidence could be relied upon by the Crown as tendency evidence.