R v Hawkins

The Crown and defence case and the lies in issue

1. The Crown's case is that the accused was angry about being stabbed by Mr Denniss and that he returned to the house with the intention of shooting Mr Denniss to kill him or at the least, to cause him grievous bodily harm, because he was angry.
2. In the s 142 Notice served by the defence in the proceedings, the accused admitted that he shot the deceased, but maintained that he acted in self-defence. He returned to the premises with a loaded firearm to "warn off" Mr Denniss, because Mr Denniss had threatened the accused and the accused was fearful that Mr Denniss may act on those threats, including harming the accused's children.
3. Because the stab wound sustained by the accused required treatment, the accused was taken to hospital by police who remained with him. Evidence called on 11 March 2020 before Walton J from Senior Constable Nathan White was to the effect that he was one of two officers who escorted the accused to hospital and that he remained sitting on a chair at the end of the accused's bed with Senior Constable Farrar whilst treatment was given.
4. The accused was seen first by a nurse at around 6am on 9 December 2018. He was asked by the nurse how he injured his arm and he replied "I cut it on some glass."
5. A little later the doctor who examined and sutured his arm recorded that the accused reported a history of "running through a window with glass at approximately 20:00 hrs the evening before which caused the laceration."
6. These are, the Crown submits, lies that demonstrate consciousness of guilt because they are inconsistent with what a person would say if he truly believed that it was necessary to do what he did in shooting the accused.
7. At about 9.33am on 9 December 2018, the accused still in police custody was spoken to by Detective Sergeant Gollege. He was informed that police were conducting an investigation into the death of Mr Denniss. He was offered the opportunity to be interviewed, and asked whether he knew anything about the death. The accused said "Ah, I don't know really. Like anything. I don't know anything about it. So. Yeah." He was only then cautioned and was later asked: "You know nothing about it. Is that correct?" The accused replied, "Yeah. Except what I read."
8. The full context of the exchange needs to be examined. These things were not said to police in the context of a formal interview after the accused had been formally cautioned and/or charged. They were recorded on body-worn cameras where the accused was first considering, then deflecting police questions and then clearly exercising his right to silence: D/Sgt Golledge: Okay, the time is 9.33am on Sunday, the 9th of December 2018. My name's Detective Sergeant Brett Golledge and ah, I'm with Detective Senior Constable Graham Galbraith. I'll show you my ID. (Identification shown). Ah, Daniel, we're attached to Newcastle City Detectives. Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Ah, and we're here obviously to speak to you in relation to an investigation we're conducting into the death of ah, Kenneth Denniss at 19 Beauford Avenue, at Maryland at about 4pm, Saturday, the 8th December 2018. Do you understand that? Accused: Yeah. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Mate, just also, I want you to be aware, we're currently recording our conversation on body worn video. Do you understand that? Accused: Yep. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay. Obviously, Daniel we're here to, ah offer you the opportunity to be interviewed in relation to this matter if you, if you wish. Ah. Accused: I don't know really, like, anything. I don't know anything about it. So, yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Before you say too much, I just want you to understand that you're not obliged to say anything unless you wish.... Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: but whatever you do say will be recorded and later used in evidence. Do you understand that? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay. Alright. So, you just say, you've said that you know nothing about it. Is that correct? Accused: Yeah. Except what I read. D/Sgt Golledge: What you what, sorry? Accused: Except what I read. D/Sgt Golledge: What you read? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay. Ah, well as I say, obviously we, we've got information that suggests that you may have some knowledge or involvement in this particular matter, and as a result of that, it's ah, I'm offering you the opportunity to be, ah, interviewed in relation to this matter. Do you understand that? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay, ah. So, do you wish to take part in an interview in relation to this matter? Accused: No, I don't. No. D/Sgt Golledge: You don't wish? Have you sought any kind of legal advice in relation to? Accused: I've just urn, I've just been in here and up at the hospital, like urn, I haven't really. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay. Did you wish to speak to someone in relation to this matter? To seek any legal advice? Accused: No. I, I never have a like, yeah, you know, cause I don't.... yeah. Nah. D/Sgt Golledge: So, before I go too much further, you are aware that you have been placed under arrest in relation to the murder of Kenneth Denniss? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Is that correct? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: And that, that occurred at 32 Raglan Crescent, Wallsend. Is that correct? Accused: Yeah. D/Sgt Golledge: Yeah. So, is it the case, you're saying that your time, at the time you were arrested at Raglan Street, you were informed of, of why you were being placed under arrest? Accused: Well, I just had been shown stuff that people were talking about it on Facebook, accusing me of that. And, then I got woken up saying the police were there. D/Sgt Golledge: Okay. Accused: And, like, that's where I thought that I've been accused of that and that's why I got (Indecipherable). D/Sgt Golledge: Okay, So, so is it the case you don't wish to be interviewed? Accused: No. D/Sgt Golledge: Sorry that's? Accused: No. (emphasis added)

Submissions

1. The Crown submitted that these statements to police and the assertions to staff at the hospital are in fact admissions within the definition of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because they are lies adverse to the accused's interests in the outcome of proceedings, as telling them undermines his position that he acted in self-defence. The lies are thus admissible and of strong probative value on the issue of his intention at the time he shot the deceased, and have the potential to inform the question of whether the Crown can negate beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted in self-defence in shooting Mr Denniss.
2. This submission was developed in oral argument before me to assert that in this context, the lies cannot be intractably neutral because they show a consciousness of the absence of any truth in potential self-defence arguments and instead, reflect an admission that the accused knew that he had deliberately killed Mr Denniss and was trying to distance himself from that act, by lying about it.
3. The defence submitted that the lies must be viewed in context. The lies to police occurred when the accused was being asked whether he wanted to be interviewed. He declined, but in doing so lied by saying he knew nothing about the matter except what he had read. The lies should be seen as deflections to his being interviewed in the context of the accused exercising his right to silence.
4. The lies at the hospital were told in the presence of police and so fall into the same category - he was deflecting inquiry made of him, in police presence, rather than actively seeking to mislead so that he could hide the truth of the fact that he shot Mr Denniss.
5. As the High Court stated in The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 at [74], there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of post-offence concealment and lies is always intractably neutral between murder and manslaughter, but this is a case where the lies are intractably neutral. There is no evidence that the accused tried to conceal the death such that it is necessary to infer that the lies were directed to consciousness of guilt of the crime of murder as opposed to some lesser offence. The lies are intractably neutral and should not be allowed to be used for a consciousness of guilt purpose.
6. It is acknowledged that the lies may be relevant to credit and if admitted on that basis should be the subject of a "Zoneff direction" (Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28), limiting their use to the question of the deceased's credibility.

Decision

1. I am not persuaded by the Crown's argument that the lies can be seen to betray consciousness of guilt of the crime of murder. The lies are minor. They are nothing more than deflections in a context where the accused was attempting to understand and exercise his rights.
2. The lies are also on any analysis intractably neutral and do not indicate that the accused did not believe his actions were necessary to defend himself.
3. The lies told by the accused to police and to hospital staff in police presence on 9 December 2018 may not be relied upon by the Crown for consciousness of guilt purpose.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 February 2021