The King v Hunt [2025] NTSC 76 | Case summary | Zoe

NTNTSC

The King v Hunt [2025] NTSC 76

[2025] NTSC 76

Supreme Court of the NT|2025-10-17|Before: Brownhill J

View original source

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of the NT

Decision date

2025-10-17

Before

Brownhill J

Catchwords

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

Judgment (248 paragraphs)

[1]

EVIDENCE - Admissibility and relevance - Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) ss 97(1), 102(2) - Whether testimonial evidence relating to the accused cutting the deceased's throat and making a threat to cut the throat of a witness admissible as tendency evidence - Single incidence of conduct in addition to charged conduct - Tendency evidence made up of a single instance of conduct in addition to alleged conduct may have significant probative value - Whether tendency to apply bladed weapons to throats of others or make threats to do so makes it more likely that the accused cut the deceased's throat - Tendency to apply bladed weapons to the throats of others or threaten to do so found to make it more likely that the accused cut the deceased's throat with a knife - Proposed tendency evidence found to have significant probative value - Probative value found to outweigh unfair prejudice to accused - Proposed tendency evidence found to be admissible

[2]

EVIDENCE - Admissibility and relevance - Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act ss 81, 85, 90, 137, 138 - (Qld) , , - Admissibility of admissions made to Police whilst in custody - Whether recorded police interview should be excluded from evidence on the basis that it was obtained improperly - Where police interview is conducted in another jurisdiction - Erroneous assumption by Police that different jurisdictional entitlements would apply - Failure to inform the accused of his entitlement to speak to a friend, relative or lawyer to try to arrange for them to be present during Police interview - Failure to delay Police interview to permit the accused to arrange for a lawyer to be present - Accused willing to proceed with interview without a lawyer present - Accused received legal advice and aware of right to silence Admissions in recorded statement not found to have been obtained improperly - Accused lied to police and denied any involvement with death of deceased during Police interview - Probative value and importance of recorded interview found to be considerable - Probative value of the recorded interview found not to be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused - Recorded police interview found to be admissible

[14]

[1] The accused is charged with the murder of Tony Rowe ('deceased'). The parties sought pre-trial rulings on the admissibility of various evidence to be relied on by the Crown at trial.
[2] The Crown sought to rely on coincidence evidence in the form of: (a) the evidence of the two witnesses present at the time of the deceased's killing, Keith Waldock and Jazmine Shier, that, immediately after the accused had done so, the accused told them he had just cut the deceased's throat; (b) the evidence of Keith Waldock that the accused had placed a sharp object against his throat and threatened him; (c) the evidence of an intercepted telephone conversation in which the accused told his mother that he would cut Jazmine Shier's throat and put her in the boot too; and (d) the evidence of the recorded conversation during the transportation by police of the accused in which the accused said he had threatened to cut the throat of his ex-partner's father. The Defence objected to this evidence on the basis that it did not have significant probative value and that the probative value of the proposed coincidence evidence did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.
[3] The Crown sought to rely on tendency evidence in the form of: (a) the evidence relating to the charged act which involved cutting the deceased's throat with a Stanley knife; and (b) the evidence of Keith Waldock about the accused placing a sharp object against his throat and threatening him. The Defence objected to the admissibility of the proposed tendency evidence on the bases that the proposed tendency evidence did not have significant probative value and that the probative value of the proposed tendency evidence did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.
[4] The Crown sought to rely on things said by the accused during an interview with Northern Territory Police whilst he was in Queensland as admissions and lies evidencing consciousness of guilt. The Defence objected to the admissibility of any admissions or lies on the basis that the evidence was improperly obtained because the Northern Territory Police did not afford the accused the rights he was entitled to under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), the accused was not properly cautioned, did not understand his right to silence and consequently did not voluntarily participate in the interview with police. Further, the Defence argued that it would be unfair to the accused to permit the Crown to adduce the evidence and its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.
[5] The Crown sought to rely on two portions of a conversation between the accused and Queensland Police officers, recorded without the accused's knowledge, as the Police transferred him from the prison to the Queensland Police Station where he was interviewed. One portion of the conversation is said to be a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt and the other is part of the coincidence evidence referred to above. The Defence objected to the admission of that evidence on the basis that it would be unfair to the accused to permit the Crown to adduce the evidence given that he was unaware that it was being recorded.
[6] The Crown sought to rely on the above evidence and other evidence of lies by the accused and various other post-offence conduct as evidence of consciousness of guilt and as lies going to the jury's assessment of his credibility. The Defence objected to the admission of the evidence for these purposes on the basis that, at the voir dire, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter of the deceased, with the effect that the evidence is not probative of the facts in issue, arguing that the only fact in issue is whether the accused intended to kill or cause serious harm to the deceased.
[7] On 31 July 2025, I ruled that the evidence sought to be relied on by the Crown was admissible, with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

[16]

[9] The Crown case is that the deceased and Keith Waldock ('Waldock') had known each other for about 12 years and were good mates. They were also related to each other in an Aboriginal way. Waldock and the deceased worked together on a commercial fishing boat. Waldock knew the deceased's family well, including his sister, SR, and his mother, AL.
[10] The accused met the deceased through the deceased's sister, NR. The accused and the deceased had known each other for about six months prior to the alleged offending. They socialised together in the months leading up to the alleged offending. The accused had driven the deceased around as the deceased did not have a car.
[11] Jazmine Shier ('Shier') was 20 years old at the time of the alleged offending. She had moved to the Northern Territory from Perth about eight months before the alleged offending occurred.
[12] In around mid-May 2022, the deceased asked a friend to introduce him to someone who could supply him with cannabis. The deceased told that friend that he and a guy called 'Tim' were looking to sell the cannabis in an Aboriginal community.
[13] On 24 May 2022, the accused and Shier began communicating on the Tinder online dating application, then on the SnapChat application. They met in person that night. The next day, they began communicating via text message and speaking on the phone. On 26 May 2022, they spent the night together at an Airbnb apartment.
[14] On 27 May 2022, AL drove the deceased to Francis Bay to collect some things from a fishing boat and the deceased ran into Waldock there. AL drove them both back to her home. Waldock asked AL to drive him to Katherine to collect his car and AL reluctantly agreed. After they arrived at AL's home, the accused arrived there in his car, a silver Ford Falcon ('Ford'). Up to this point, the accused and Waldock did not know each other. AL joked that she wished the accused would drive the deceased and Waldock to Katherine to get Waldock's car. The accused agreed. Before they left, the accused showed Waldock an axe he had, which he said he usually kept in the Ford, on the driver's side of the car. The accused left the axe and a number of other belongings from the Ford at AL's home before departing for Katherine.
[15] For some of the trip to Katherine, Waldock sat in the front passenger seat of the Ford. He noticed a number of box cutters lying in the centre console, including a grey Stanley knife. Upon arrival in Katherine, the accused dropped Waldock at his car which was at Waldock's ex-partner's home. Waldock drove his car back to Darwin. The deceased and the accused drove back to Darwin in the Ford.
[16] When Waldock arrived in Darwin, he did not want to leave his car at his brother's home. The accused suggested he park it at the residence where the accused was staying in Staghorn Court ('Staghorn Court'), which was around the corner. Waldock agreed. He drove to Staghorn Court and parked his car. Three people lived at Staghorn Court: JM1, JM2 and HL.
[17] The accused, the deceased and Waldock spent the rest of the day together, driving around Darwin in the Ford. Thereafter, the deceased was dropped off at AL's home and Waldock and the accused returned to Staghorn Court. At around 4am, Waldock went to sleep in his car. The accused stayed at the Staghorn Court residence.
[18] On 28 May 2022, at around 11am, the accused drove the Ford to AL's home with Waldock where they collected the deceased. The accused also collected the axe he had left there the day before. Just after midday, the accused drove Waldock and the deceased to a bottle shop where they bought a carton of beer. They all then went to Rapid Creek and drank the beer. They spent the day together. The deceased and Waldock drank a lot of alcohol and became significantly intoxicated. At around 1.30pm, they drove in the Ford to a residence where SR was present. The deceased asked SR for some 'weed' for 'Timmy'. The Police were at the same residence for an unrelated reason, so the accused, the deceased and Waldock drove away together. At around 3pm, the deceased called AL and told her he would be 'going bush' soon.
[19] Between then and around 6.30pm, the accused, the deceased and Waldock drove to SR's home. The deceased was drunk. He asked SR if she knew anyone who had lots of 'marijuana'. She told him he does not even smoke and to go away, go to bed and stop drinking. When the accused got out of the Ford, the deceased yelled at him to get back in the car and not come into SR's home. The deceased also twice telephoned the friend he had earlier asked about cannabis, but the calls went unanswered.
[20] Later, the accused, Waldock and the deceased went to a shopping centre in Palmerston. The accused and the deceased had an argument which started to get physical. The accused claimed the deceased owed him $10,000. Waldock said he was hungry, so they drove to a Tavern in Leanyer ('Tavern').
[21] At around 6.45pm, the accused called Shier and spoke to her for a few minutes.
[22] At around 7.45pm, the accused dropped the deceased and Waldock off at the Tavern and left to pick up Shier. The deceased and Waldock were refused service at the Tavern because of their intoxication. They were ejected from the bar. The deceased went to the beer garden and spoke to other patrons. Waldock played on the poker machines, then went and waited out the front of the Tavern for the others. The accused returned in the Ford with Shier. Waldock met them in the car park and told them that he and the deceased had been refused entry to the Tavern. This was the first time Shier had met Waldock. Waldock said he was staying in the Ford to drink more beer. Waldock stood in the car park, smoking and drinking. The accused and Shier went into the Tavern and had a drink.
[23] At around 8pm, the deceased was asked to leave the beer garden because of his intoxication. He was escorted through the bar area and saw the accused with Shier. This was the first time Shier had met the deceased. Security then asked the group to leave. The accused had the deceased's phone and held it out towards him. The deceased snatched the phone from him. The accused and the deceased had a heated verbal argument after which the accused physically removed the deceased from the Tavern by pushing him outside. At some point, the accused again took the deceased's phone from him. The accused pushed the deceased to the Ford in the car park, yelling and arguing. He pushed the deceased into the Ford and walked away. Waldock spoke with the deceased for some time then got into the Ford.
[24] Just after 8pm, the accused returned to the Tavern and he and Shier finished their drinks. They exited the Tavern and walked to the Ford. The accused gave Shier his keys and told her to drive. He said they were going to his friend's house. Shier got into the driver's seat, the accused was in the front passenger seat and Waldock and the deceased were in the back seat. At around 8.20pm, they left the Tavern in the Ford.
[25] The accused told Shier to drive from the car park, heading for Staghorn Court. As they drove, the deceased said to Shier that he thought he knew her from somewhere. The accused became defensive and told the deceased he did not know Shier and no one knew her because she was only new to the Northern Territory.
[26] The accused and Waldock spoke about a trip they intended to make over the next couple of days to a community to sell cannabis, and about how the accused had wanted the deceased to organise the purchase of two kilograms of cannabis for that trip, but the accused had not done so. The accused said he should have dealt with SR instead of the deceased because SR was 'higher up'. The accused demanded the passcode to the deceased's phone. The deceased refused to provide the passcode, which agitated the accused. The accused said the deceased owed him between $7,000 and $10,000 for not organising the cannabis. The deceased was highly intoxicated. He opened a beer from the carton in the back seat. The accused turned around, knocked the beer from the deceased's hand and hit him with his hand, leaning against Shier to do so. Shier asked if she should pull over. The accused told her to keep driving.
[27] Shier drove the Ford to an area near the Thorak Cemetery. The accused and the deceased continued to argue about the passcode to the deceased's phone and the money that the accused claimed the deceased owed to him. Waldock asked where they were and the accused said words to the effect of: 'At the fucking cemetery, where this cunt should be'. They pulled over. Shier remained in the Ford. The accused and the deceased got out of the Ford, arguing and engaging in a physical scuffle. The accused continued to demand the passcode to the deceased's phone. He pushed the deceased back inside the Ford.
[28] The accused directed Shier to turn off the road they were on, pull into an area off the road and turn off the car. They were on a gravel area on the road going toward the cemetery, not far from the Campbell Road turnoff. They were at this location from around 8.30pm to 9.30pm.
[29] Whilst still seated in the front passenger seat of the Ford, the accused turned around, grabbed the deceased and demanded the passcode to his phone. Waldock told the deceased they need the passcode now. The accused and Waldock got out of the Ford. The accused opened the rear door, grabbed the deceased by the ankles and pulled him out of the car, causing him to hit his head on the chassis below the open car door. The accused told Shier to stay in the Ford where she was.
[30] The deceased was standing against the rear passenger side of the Ford. The accused and Waldock started punching and kicking the deceased to the head, chest and stomach, demanding the passcode to his phone so they could speak to SR. This assault continued for around 20 minutes, during which the accused and Waldock punched and kicked the deceased at least 40 times. Waldock hit the deceased more than once. The deceased had blood on his face, was holding his ribs and struggling to talk. The accused and Waldock told the deceased he owed them money, he had ruined 'the whole run' and people who were counting on them to do the run would be coming after them.
[31] The accused walked to the driver's side of the Ford, opened the driver's door and picked up his axe from the floor space between the door and the driver's seat. He returned to the deceased and started hitting the ground with the back of the axe, attempting to scare the deceased into providing the passcode to his phone. The accused did this about five times, screaming that the deceased owed him money and to give the passcode so SR could organise it.
[32] The accused went back to the driver's side of the Ford. He took a pair of wire cutters from the pocket in the driver's door and used them to cut the deceased's little toe off. The accused put his head through the front passenger door and told Shier he had cut the deceased's toe off. The accused was laughing and said words to the effect of: 'He took it like a man, he didn't even flinch. He didn't even make a noise.'
[33] When the accused took out the wire cutters, Waldock became uncomfortable, looking like he did not want to be there. Toward the end of this period, Waldock walked off, looking shocked and like he was going to be sick. Waldock said to the accused: 'Leave him alone, he's had enough already' and: 'That's enough, that's enough, leave him. We will pick him up when he wakes up in the morning'.
[34] The accused said that if anyone finds out that he cut the deceased's toe off, SR would send people after him and he would be dead. The accused returned to the Ford and took a Stanley knife from the driver's door. He went back to the deceased behind the Ford, picked him up and was standing over him, holding him in a headlock position. The accused used the Stanley knife to cut the deceased's throat open. The deceased fell face first onto the ground and was not moving. The accused said to Waldock: 'Get back in the fucking car. The debt's been cleared. I've just cut the cunt's throat'.
[35] The accused went to the front passenger door, with the Stanley knife still in his hand, and told Shier he had cut the deceased's throat and knew for a fact he had hit a main artery. The accused said: 'It's done, it's done, we're going'.
[36] The accused got back into the front passenger seat of the Ford with the Stanley knife in his hand and told Shier he could still hear the deceased breathing but he was choking, 'drowning on his own blood', that the accused 'knew for a fact' that he had 'hit a main artery' and that the deceased 'wouldn't live for long', he was dead.
[37] The accused told Shier to start the Ford but then asked her to stop. The accused got out of the Ford and dragged the deceased's body by the legs into the trees in the bushland nearby, then kicked dirt over the deceased's blood and drag marks to hide the signs of what had happened.
[38] Around the time the accused had cut the deceased's throat, Waldock was 'freaking out' and had urinated himself. He also took a couple of steps kicking dirt over his urine and the blood on the ground. The accused and Waldock did this for about five minutes. The accused was also searching for the deceased's toe.
[39] The accused said to Waldock: 'I'm not going to tell you again, get back in the fucking car' and Waldock got back into the rear seat of the Ford on the passenger side. The accused got into the front passenger seat and told Shier to drive, directing her to Staghorn Court.
[40] As they were half-way down the road, the accused turned around to Waldock in the back seat, put the blade of a sharp object (an axe or a Stanley knife) hard up against Waldock's throat and said that if he ever goes to 'the coppers' or says anything to anyone about this, the accused would go to Katherine and kill Waldock's partner and father-in-law. The accused said: 'You saw what I just done to [the deceased]. Don't make me go to Katherine and do your family' or '...do your partner and father-in-law'. The accused also said that if SR found out what had happened there would be trouble.
[41] At around 9.35pm, the accused, Waldock and Shier drove to Staghorn Court. They were silent.
[42] They arrived at Staghorn Court at around 9.45pm. While still in the Ford, the accused and Waldock talked about taking the deceased's body on a fishing trip and using him as 'croc bait'. The accused said he was going to chop him up but his axe would not be sharp enough.
[43] When they arrived at Staghorn Court, JM1, JM2 and HL were present. The accused met JM1 at the residence's door and when she asked what happened, the accused told her they had hit a kangaroo. The accused asked JM1 for a tarp and opened the boot of the Ford. Everyone went inside. Shier was given a joint to smoke.
[44] Everyone else went into the back room of the residence and started moving things around. The accused took everything from the boot of the Ford into the back room. The accused took his axe into the house and filled up the bath. He asked JM1 if she had any chemical cleaner, and she said she did not. The accused used laundry liquid or something similar and soaked the axe in the bath. He used his multi-tool knife to peel layers off the handle of the axe. He told Shier that he was trying to wash blood off the handle as it was visible. He also washed his arms.
[45] The accused had the deceased's phone with him. He asked HL if he could unlock and clear it so they could sell it. When HL saw that it was an iPhone, he told the accused it could be tracked and to 'get rid of it'. The accused snapped the deceased's phone and smashed the screen, destroying it. The last time the deceased's phone connected to the phone service was at 9.43pm in the Woodroffe area.
[46] Waldock was keen to leave Staghorn Court and stayed about 20 minutes. He had collected his things from the Ford. The accused and Shier walked to the Ford and Waldock was standing there too. The accused told Waldock to remember what he had just done to the deceased and threatened him again, saying words to the effect of: 'Don't make me come looking for you or your family' and: 'If you go to the coppers, or anyone, I'll do your family'. Waldock was panicking, pacing, fidgeting and breathing fast, saying he was worried about his wife and kids. The accused was calm, assuring Waldock this would not fall on him.
[47] At around 10.08pm, Waldock got into his car and left Staghorn Court. He drove around the corner to his brother's house. He parked there and slept briefly, leaving at around 1.30am with his cousin-sister, to drive to the fishing boat. Waldock left Darwin on the fishing boat at around 9-10am the following morning. The boat's shore manager asked Waldock where the deceased was. Waldock told him he had left the deceased with his mate Tim. Waldock said this because he was afraid of the accused and of the threats the accused had made.
[48] The accused and Shier remained at Staghorn Court. The accused told Shier to stay in the back room. She fell asleep for a period then began to say she wanted to go home.
[49] JM1 gave the accused a large tent with no poles in response to his request for a tarp. The accused laid that tent in the empty boot of the Ford. The accused told Shier they had to go. He got into the driver's seat of the Ford, with Shier in the passenger seat. They left Staghorn Court at speed at around 11.45pm.
[50] The accused drove back to the location of the deceased's body. As he drove, he was looking all around for Police. He drove past the spot a few times first, talking to Shier about drones. He told Shier to sit in the Ford and stay there because she did not need to 'see this'.
[51] The accused dragged the deceased's body from the trees. He searched for the deceased's toe but could not find it. He gave up saying: 'The dogs will take care of him'.
[52] The accused wrapped the deceased's body in the tent material and put it into the boot of the car. He then got into the driver's seat and began driving away at speed. Around this time, the accused asked Shier where his phone was as he could not find it. He used Shier's phone to make numerous calls to his phone to locate it. He drove back to the original location trying to find it. Ultimately, he found it in the back seat of the Ford. Mobile phone data locates the accused and Shier in this vicinity from around 12.30am until 2.00am.
[53] The accused drove to Weddell. Along the way, the accused stopped near some tracks and threw the deceased's snapped phone away.
[54] The accused told Shier he had to burn the body. He stopped the car, took out a jerry can, some pieces of clothing and five small bottles from the back seat of the Ford. He filled the bottles with petrol that he syphoned from the Ford's fuel tank. The accused put the jerry can and the bottles onto the back seat of the Ford and kept driving. At a railway crossing, the accused turned off and drove along the railway track for some time before stopping. He stopped at the bushiest tree he could find.
[55] The accused got out and tried to open the boot. He could not open it and broke the latch on the boot by pulling it off to get the boot open. He dragged the deceased's body from the boot, still wrapped in the tent, and over to the tree. He told Shier to get the bottles from the Ford. He poured petrol onto the tent, lit a cigarette, had a couple of puffs and then put it into the deceased's mouth. He said he was going to give the deceased 'one last smoke', but the cigarette went out.
[56] The accused took some paper rubbish from the Ford, lit it on fire and told Shier to start the Ford. She reached over from the passenger seat and did so. The accused threw the lit material and ran to the Ford, got in the driver's seat and started reversing. There was a loud 'bang' and the tree next to the deceased's body caught on fire. The accused started laughing.
[57] Shier told the accused that she wanted to go home. The accused told her she could not and he would drop her off in the morning. She was terrified of him.
[58] The accused drove back to Staghorn Court along back roads, arriving around 4am. On the drive back, the accused said to Shier words to the effect of: 'You can't leave me now, you can't tell anyone about this.'
[59] When they got back to Staghorn Court, HL and JM1 were there. At first, JM1 did not want to open the door, but the accused told her words to the effect of: 'It's sorted' and she let them in. The accused kept both his and Shier's phones. Shier was left alone in the lounge room and fell asleep. The accused later woke her up, saying he was going to bed and would take her home in the morning.
[60] When Shier woke up in the morning, she asked the accused a number of times if she could go home. He said she could not go yet as they had to 'do some stuff'. Hours passed. JM1 and HL later left Staghorn Court.
[61] The accused moved the Ford into the driveway, opened the boot and took out everything that was inside, including the carpet, the spare wheel and a piece of wood. He washed the inside of the Ford, using the hose to try and get the deceased's blood out of the boot lining. A lot of blood had collected in the bottom of the boot in the wheel well. The accused was laughing and telling Shier about how he had the deceased in the boot. The accused said he needed to get the blood out of the Ford, to give it a really good clean, because it was easily recognisable. When the water going down the driveway turned red with blood, the accused moved the Ford onto the grass to clean it there. The accused removed the obvious signs of blood from the Ford and was angry that the tent used to line the boot and carry the body had not prevented the blood from seeping through into the carpet and the spare wheel well.
[62] At some point, the accused broke the spoiler from the Ford, either when he was at Staghorn Court or when he was trying to get the deceased's body out of the Ford. The accused gave up on cleaning the carpet and rolled it up and threw it and the spoiler against a fence at Staghorn Court. CCTV footage from the Tavern on 28 May 2022 shows the Ford with the spoiler on it, but CCTV footage from the Palmerston area at 8.18am on 29 May 2022 shows the Ford without a spoiler.
[63] Later that day, the accused and Shier left Staghorn Court supposedly to take Shier home. After they left, the accused said they needed to go to Bunnings. They arrived at Bunnings around 4pm. Both the accused and Shier walked through Bunnings together. The accused asked Shier: 'What gets rid of blood?' and she replied that she did not know. They took two bottles of bleach and two bottles of acetone to the checkout. The accused told Shier he had no money but would be paid next week. Shier paid for the bottles. They then drove back to Staghorn Court.
[64] The accused then scrubbed the Ford with the bleach, acetone, a hose and a scrubbing brush, focussing on the boot area. He said to Shier: '[The deceased] was a bleeder'. This took around 20 minutes.
[65] After cleaning the car, the accused drove Shier to her home. He told her to 'watch' herself, that 'people aren't hard to find', that he knew she had 'no one up here', that he was part of a 'bikie gang' and knew where she lived and worked. Shier went into her room and cried.
[66] On 30 May 2022, at around 2pm, AL called the accused and asked him where the deceased was. She had called the deceased a number of times and had no answer. The accused told AL that the deceased had run off into the bush in Palmerston. AL thought the accused sounded panicky and scared. AL then reported to Police that the deceased was missing. The accused and AL had three conversations in which he told her that the deceased had left the Ford at three different places.
[67] In the days that followed, the accused called and messaged Shier numerous times, telling her to go back to work and keep doing whatever she was doing. When Shier left work, the accused called her or was there or was at her house or telling her to meet him somewhere. Shier interpreted this as the accused trying to prove she could not get away from him, he was watching her and she had to do whatever he said. The accused threatened Shier, telling her he knew where she lived and worked, that she had no car to get around, that he was a bikie and was from Darwin. Shier feared he knew bikies and would send them around to visit her.
[68] On 30 May 2022, the accused picked Shier up after work and took her to the beach. They went to wash the car at a car wash and the accused yelled at Shier that she had missed spots.
[69] On or around 30 May 2022, the accused conducted a Google search on his phone for 'what happens when an animal dies at the zoo'.
[70] On 31 May 2022, the accused called Shier and told her he was coming to pick her up, she needed to jump in the Ford quickly and not ask any questions. She did as he said. He told her they were going to Tennant Creek for his work and he would give her the Ford to return in. That evening, the accused and Shier met up with JM1 and HL at a caravan car park and collected some of the accused's belongings from them.
[71] At around 10.30pm, the accused and Shier stopped in Berry Springs, at the residence of an associate of the accused, AD. The accused had previously stored some of his belongings at AD's property. Earlier that day, AD had received messages from the accused's former partner asking for some of her belongings. AD had forwarded those messages to the accused and the accused had said he would collect the items that afternoon.
[72] At AD's property, the accused asked AD how to get rid of blood. The accused and AD joked about moving the body and burying him on AD's large property. The accused told AD that he was leaving the Northern Territory, was going to take the Ford to the beach and burn it, but then he would not have a car, he could leave the keys in the Ford and hope it would be picked up by locals and burnt or he could burn the back of the Ford and hope someone takes it and crashes it. The accused did not want to do this as the Ford was the only thing he owned, but burning the Ford was the only way, because if Police got the Ford, he was guaranteed to get charged.
[73] The accused opened the boot of the Ford and AD saw that it was empty, the carpet lining and spare tyre had been removed and the boot had been freshly cleaned. The accused told AD that he had someone in there and he is not far from here, he needed to make the Ford disappear, and asked if he could leave the Ford on the property and how to get rid of blood. The accused told AD that when Shier was in the Ford, someone was being a smart ass and was in the back seat so the accused had leant over and 'done something'. The accused said that someone had been reported missing by the missing person's mother. The accused said no one would know if the missing person was actually missing because it would be two weeks until the boat returned. AD asked where the person he had 'bashed' was and the accused said 'around here' and changed the subject.
[74] On 31 May 2022, AL was told by her friend, who had been at the Tavern on 28 May 2022, that he had seen the deceased, the accused and others at the Tavern the same evening.. AL called the accused and told him she knew that they had been at the Tavern. The accused told AL that he had 'bought a whore' and the boys were in the Tavern while he 'rooted' her. He said he never went inside the Tavern. He said that after leaving the Tavern with the deceased and Waldock, they drove towards Palmerston and dropped Waldock off somewhere. The deceased had argued with someone on the phone and then ran away on foot somewhere near the Palmerston Hospital, but he did not know exactly where.
[75] On 1 June 2022, during the drive of the accused and Shier to Tennant Creek, the accused yelled at Shier to cover the Ford with a sheet so it would not be recognised in Katherine, to stay in the Ford as he fuelled it up, and to get back in the Ford at a service station because they were being followed. When Shier said she wanted to go back to work, the accused said she was trying to abandon him, he told her to grab her 'shit' and 'fuck off'. She got into the Ford and started driving. The accused threw his pocket knife at her in the Ford. The accused got into another car, telling the driver that his Ford had been stolen. He chased Shier and sent her a text saying: 'I am behind you ... pull over please'. When Shier pulled over and the other driver left, the accused grabbed Shier by the throat and yelled at her, emptied out the boot, sat in the front seat and smashed the Ford's front window with his fist.
[76] During the drive to Tennant Creek, the accused behaved erratically. He yelled at Shier that she and her father 'were next'. He carried his axe and took it into their accommodation, putting it in a pillow.
[77] When they arrived at a hotel in Tennant Creek, the accused told Shier to stay in the room and that women cannot be trusted. When Shier said she needed to go home, the accused lost his temper again.
[78] The accused met a truck driver in connection with his work. He told Shier to drive the Ford back to Darwin. On 3 June 2022, the accused sent Shier a message saying that he gave full ownership of the Ford to her. Shier drove the Ford straight home, arriving on 5 June 2022. She parked the Ford outside her residence. On the drive back, the accused called her repeatedly.
[79] Once at home, Shier told her housemate that she had returned from Tennant Creek. Shier received a phone call and told her housemate the call was from 'Tim's aunty', telling her he had been arrested and to remove the numberplates from the Ford, which she did.
[80] After Shier left Tennant Creek, the accused collected a truck and drove to Queensland.
[81] On 3 June 2022, after viewing CCTV footage of the accused, the deceased, Waldock and Shier at the Tavern, a Police officer ('Trease') called the accused. The accused admitted he had been at the Tavern with the deceased and Waldock, but said that after leaving the Tavern, they went to the Gateway area on the Stuart Highway, then pulled up near Howard Springs or Coolalinga where the deceased and Waldock got out of the Ford and only Waldock returned. He said they went to the accused's sister's house in Moulden and Waldock left as soon as they arrived.
[82] Trease asked about the unidentified female from the Tavern. The accused said she was a 'Tinder root', he did not know her name, and they were no longer matched on Tinder with the consequence that the name disappears.
[83] The accused agreed to make a formal statement with Queensland Police about the matter when he arrived.
[84] Northern Territory Police arranged for Queensland Police to take the accused's statement in Mt Isa.
[85] On 4 June 2022, the accused was arrested by Queensland Police on unrelated matters. At the time of his arrest, Police seized an axe matching the description given by Shier from the truck in which the accused had been travelling.
[86] On 4 June 2022, at the watchhouse, the accused had a recorded conversation with Police during which he admitted that: (a) he knew the deceased and they were close, although he had not known him for long; (b) the deceased was thrown out of the Tavern for being drunk and the accused had put him in the Ford with Waldock; (c) the accused had been trying to have a drink with a female at the Tavern; (iv) they all left the Tavern together; and (v) the accused and the deceased were trying to buy some 'weed' to sell but had not managed to obtain it.
[87] The accused also said that: (a) he did know a 20 year old woman who was originally from Perth named 'Jazz' who he had seen a few times, but he did not know the female he was with at the Tavern on 28 May 2022, she was just 'some bitch off Tinder', he had never seen her before or since, they were unmatched on Tinder so the contact was gone, he could not even remember what that female looked like, she was 'just some Tinder hookup from Darwin'; (b) he did not know what had happened to the deceased, who knows some 'shady people', his sister is a 'bikie', and they were threatening the accused about the deceased being missing or getting hurt; (c) the last time he saw the deceased was that night when they pulled up on the side of the Stuart Highway between Howard Springs and Coolalinga, and he had dropped Waldock off at his car at his sister's house and maybe Waldock picked the deceased up; (d) the deceased had been depressed and crying that night because his wife had left him and people were saying he had killed himself; (e) the deceased had just disappeared into the bush, he walks off like that when he is 'pissed'; (f) AL told the accused that the deceased had been talking to someone from a Parap pub, the deceased had been calling someone and getting really worried and anxious, which is why the deceased and the group got drunk that night; (g) the female from the Tavern drove the Ford up the road to a bus stop near the pools, got out and walked across the road, that was the last time he had seen her and he does not know where she lives; (h) the deceased got out of the car and disappeared into the bush; and (i) by repeatedly asking where the deceased was, impliedly said that he did not know.
[88] On 5 June 2022, the accused gave a written statement to Queensland Police in which he repeated the admissions and lies told to Police on 4 June 2022.
[89] On 6 June 2022, Police located the Ford outside Shier's residence. They published a media release showing an image of the female depicted on the CCTV footage from the Tavern seeking to identify her. Shier contacted Police to ask that her image be taken down. On 7 June 2022, Shier identified herself to Police as the female in the image. Shier gave statements to Police but was too afraid of the accused and Waldock to disclose what she had witnessed. She was also afraid that they would seek to implicate her. She did inform Police about Staghorn Court. With her consent, Police conducted an initial search of the Ford.
[90] On 8 June 2022, with the consent of Shier, Police seized the Ford. It later underwent forensic examination. Shier led Police to Staghorn Court as the location she, the deceased, the accused and Waldock had gone on 28 May 2022. Shier informed Police that the accused had threatened her and that she was in fear for her safety. Police went to Staghorn Court and located the spoiler from the Ford, as well as the empty bottles of acetone and bleach which were seized with the consent of the residents.
[91] On 9 June 2022, Police executed a search warrant at Staghorn Court.
[92] On 10 June 2022, forensic testing of stains in the spare wheel well in the boot of the Ford tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood.
[93] On 11 June 2022, Shier provided Police with her phone, which underwent digital forensic examination. Police provided Shier with an audio recording device to record phone conversations between herself and the accused.
[94] On 13 June 2022, forensic testing of the middle seat on the left side of the Ford tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood. A sample from a tape lift from the middle seat was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing of this sample returned a mixed DNA profile from the accused and the deceased. The rear passenger seat on the left side tested weakly positive to a presumptive test for blood. A tape lift from the rear left passenger seat was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing of this sample returned a mixed DNA profile from the accused and the deceased.
[95] On 15 June 2022, Shier and the accused had a phone conversation which she recorded. The accused said that he was going to have to buy her a new phone, her phone would have to be smashed very soon because she had it on her when they 'went for a drive' and her 'location says everything'. He told her that if anyone tried to take her phone, she should smash it and the worst she would get is a charge for destruction of evidence, he would pay the fine and that was 'better than the alternative'.
[96] On 16 June 2022, Shier informed Police she was departing Darwin for Perth as she had pre-booked flights. She was escorted to the airport by Police and went to Perth.
[97] On 19 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Shier was not talking to him anymore, they had 'shared history', it was 'what we've done', which was nothing to do with 'rooting', 'it's old mate'.
[98] On 20 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Shier was not talking to him, he had not heard from her all day, so: 'Fuck the little dog. I'll go up there and cut her throat and put her in the boot too'.
[99] On 22 June 2022, the swab from the stain in the spare wheel well of the Ford was confirmed to be human blood and DNA testing returned a DNA profile from the deceased.
[100] On 22 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said he had been calling and messaging Shier repeatedly and was receiving no reply. He said he wanted the Ford back and would go to her house in Darwin and get it.
[101] Later that day, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said Shier would not talk to him and said he would 'bash' her.
[102] On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said Shier was not talking to him, 'just being a dog', he had not heard from her and might call her at work.
[103] On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with a female associate which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. She said she thought the phone was 'tapped', he said it is 'tapped' and he would have to get a new one, she said Police would be contacting everyone he contacted that night and if they came to her, she had removed all of their conversations and would hide her phone and pretend she does not have one, and he said the Police have his phone and his car.
[104] On 24 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, JM, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that Police had his car, 'that girl' had given it to them, the phone was 'bugged', and he had pulled the battery out of his phone but hung onto it. JM said that when he took the battery out of his phone, that would show his last location. The accused said he had bought another phone with a VPN location set to Perth, and he was going to set it to America.
[105] On 25 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, WF, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that there was a good chance his phone was 'bugged ... cos of old mate going missing'.
[106] On 26 June 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with JM which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he thought Shier had 'buckled', he had told her 'stick with me ... you'll be right; go against me and you're fucked'. JM said he was told Shier's image had been taken down. The accused said he would Google that because if it had been taken down then she was cooperating with them.
[107] On 1 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, TL, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that his phone was bugged, he would look for a payphone, that 'we' were 'on the piss' and his mate walked off into the bush and has not been seen since and now it was a murder investigation.
[108] On 3 July 2022, Shier had a phone conversation with her father which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. Shier described her fear of the accused and panic attacks triggered by knowing the accused was not in custody and Police did not know where he was. She said when the accused told her he was on his way to Darwin she almost passed out.
[109] On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with JM1 which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said: 'don't talk too much on this phone', the phone was bugged, Shier would not talk to him and she gave the Ford to Police.
[110] On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with an associate, RT, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he had bought the Ford from bikies in Tasmania and hoped they did not do anything 'sketchy' in it, like hurt anybody or put anyone in the boot or bashed anyone in it and apart from that, he was not worried. Police traced the previous owner of the Ford, which the accused had purchased in Tasmania, who did not have any association with a bikie gang or criminal activity.
[111] On 5 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with a Police officer ('Humphries') which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. The accused said that he bought the Ford from bikies, that the deceased had said he was going to Europe to get a European woman, that the deceased had said he was going back on the boat but then was not doing that because of some 'Kiwi' that worked on the boat.
[112] On 21 July 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his ex-partner, LR, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that his phones are 'hot', he is under investigation for murder. LR said she did not say anything about that and would not, and the accused cut her off and said he did not know what she was on about and told her to 'shut the fuck up'.
[113] On 22 September 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with his mother, with LR speaking in the background, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. To LR, the accused said 'I am cutting your fucking stepdad's throat'.
[114] On 23 September 2022, the accused had a phone conversation with KT which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. He said that he had the feeling the Police want him 'away for a while', and they had something on him somewhere. KT said it was to do 'with that car situation'. The accused said: 'yeah that fucking other car', 'that fucking blue car'. KT said the police had something from that car and the accused agreed. KT said she told the accused to burn it or get rid of it in general and the accused agreed.
[115] On 14 October 2022, Shier had a phone conversation with her friend, DD, which was lawfully intercepted and recorded. Shier said she was an anxious person since 'that Darwin thing' which had just 'fucked me', she was still having nightmares about it and wakes up to noises, gets anxious and panics about phone calls, worried 'if that's him', every time she thinks she is over it, something else comes up, no one wants to know the truth, various things would trigger her, they had not found the deceased and she did not know where he was, but what if he is found and it all 'backfires on me', she was terrified she would wake up with Police at the door and she would be locked up, she was worried about being framed, if 'he' had something to do with his mate disappearing, what would he have done to her, a person he did not even know, she could have been murdered and ended up in the boot of 'his' car and no one would have known.
[116] On 29 March 2023, the accused was transported from a correctional centre in Queensland to the Rockhampton Police Station for an interview with Northern Territory Police. Two Queensland Police officers ('Clark' and 'Stanborough') escorted the accused. Clark covertly recorded their conversation with the accused. During the journey, the accused referred to issues with his former partner which led to her father threatening to cut the accused's throat, and the accused said: 'I will cut your throat you maggot before I get my throat cut'. The accused also said he was the last person to see the deceased. He also said he was still holding out hopes that the deceased was 'holed up somewhere with some sheila' or something.
[117] On 29 March 2023, the accused participated in a recorded interview with Northern Territory Police at the Rockhampton Police Station. During the interview:

[17]

(a) The accused denied that he knew Shier, saying he could not remember her name, the 'bird' he picked up lived locally, she did not attend Staghorn Court after the Tavern on 28 May 2022 and he had no continued contact with her. When he was told that the Ford was handed to Police by Shier, and asked what he could tell Police about her, he said: 'Nothing'.

(b) The accused said that after leaving the Tavern, he pulled up on the Stuart Highway at Humpty Doo or Howard Springs for a 'piss', after which the deceased walked off and did not come back out of the bush. At this time there was only himself, the deceased and Waldock in the Ford. After the deceased walked off, he assumed Waldock was going to pick the deceased up.

(c) The accused said he went to AD's property on the way to Tennant Creek with someone that the accused had arranged to take the Ford back to Darwin. Referred to AD saying the boot liner of the Ford was not there and the boot was clean, the accused said it was clean because he had to put LR's 'shit' in there. Earlier in the interview, he had said he had thrown some of LR's things out the window and indicated animosity towards LR.

(d) The accused admitted that: (i) on 28 May 2022, he was drinking with the deceased and Waldock at various pubs; (ii) they were trying to buy 'weed' which he and the deceased wanted to sell 'out bush' and smoke; (iii) he owned the Ford then held by Police and when shown photos of the Ford said there should be a spoiler on it, but it might have fallen off; (iv) he had been friends with the deceased for around six months; (v) the deceased drank a lot, gets arrogant and disappears; (vi) on 28 May 2022, he was with a female at the Tavern with Waldock and the deceased; (vii) he parked the Ford in the car park at the Tavern, which then had the spoiler on it; (viii) the deceased was being rude, agitated, 'going off' and 'blind drunk', they were all 'pretty fucking pissed'; (ix) the deceased got evicted by bar staff and the accused removed him from the venue, pushing him outside; (x) after leaving the Tavern, the female drove the Ford, with the accused, the deceased and Waldock in the passenger seats; (xi) his phone was a Samsung and he had an application on it called 'Who Touched My Phone' which took photos when someone unlocked the phone; (xii) he 'should have' had his phone on him the night the deceased disappeared; (xiii) he knew AD, who had set up a job for him in Queensland after the deceased's disappearance; and (xiv) he drove to Tennant Creek in the Ford and someone else drove it back to Darwin.

(e) The accused told Police that he did not have any real memory as to what happened after leaving the Tavern, he was not sure if he went to the Noonamah area on that night. Asked what he did on 29 May 2022, he said he did not know, he probably slept. He did not recall going to Staghorn Court.

(f) The accused recalled a conversation with AL in which she told him to look for the deceased, but he did not know where to look.

(g) The accused explained the recorded conversation with Shier referred to in paragraph [95] above by saying hers was an iPhone and he was a lifetime Samsung user.

(h) Asked about cleaning the Ford, the accused said he washed it at the car wash after going to the beach. Asked if he cleaned it any other time or at any other locations, he said he did not know. The accused said he was not sure if he went to Bunnings on 29 May 2022 and purchased acetone and bleach and could not recall doing so.

(i) When told Shier had told Police she was with him when they went to Staghorn Court, the accused said he was genuinely not sure, confused and did not know.

(j) The accused explained the recorded conversation with his mother referred to in paragraph [98] above by saying that comment was taken out of context, and it was 'just a twisted sense of humour'.

(k) Told that blood found in the wheel well and on the back seat of the Ford matched with the deceased's DNA, the accused said he could not understand the result in the wheel well but was not surprised about the back seat because the deceased had an injury to his hand or foot and was always lying down in the back seat of the Ford.

(l) The accused did not know why he had undertaken the Google search referred to in paragraph [69] above, said he is a 'curious person' and that he did not remember Googling that.

[18]

[118] On 29 March 2023, immediately after the formal recorded interview, the accused told Police that he had expected the Police to talk more about Waldock but there was no mention of him, which was frustrating and suspicious.
[119] On 29 March 2023, the accused was transported back to the correctional centre by Clark and Stanborough. Clark covertly recorded their conversation, during which the accused said there were three of them confirmed to be the last to be with the deceased, but only two of them had been mentioned and the other person had been left out of it, AL had told the accused he did not sound guilty because he still talked to her, whereas Waldock did not talk to anyone, visit or check in with the family, and that was the 'fella' that had not been mentioned at all.
[120] On 29 March 2023, the accused called LR from the correctional centre, which was lawfully recorded. The accused discussed the Police interview and told LR that he had not been charged yet, discussed the evidence shown to him, and said he was trying to work out why Police found the deceased's blood in the boot of the Ford.
[121] Later that day, the accused called LR again and discussed the interview further, denying he did anything. He said Police were looking at him and Shier as having 'done it' and said he told Police that they had it all wrong and they should investigate properly. When LR said: 'instead of investigating the wrong people', the accused said that they were not really because he was the last to be seen with the deceased, so they are looking at the right people in a way, that he is not the wrong person to look at because it 'looks bad, ugly'. He said he was part of it because the deceased was out drinking with them.
[122] Later that day, the accused called LR again and said that at some point there had been carpet lining the boot of the Ford, but it had disappeared.
[123] On 10 May 2023, a warrant was issued for the accused's arrest. He was arrested in Queensland by Clark, who recorded the arrest on a voice recorder. The accused said that he had not done this, they have the wrong person, it was Waldock, and he, the accused, did not do anything.
[124] On 17 May 2023, the accused was extradited to the Northern Territory on a flight accompanied by Police officers ('Hutchinson' and 'Wheeler'). Hutchinson recorded their conversations and told the accused that she was doing so. During the conversations:

[19]

(a) The accused told Hutchinson to speak to Waldock, and said he does not trust Waldock.

(b) The accused said he had a bit of a scuffle with the deceased at a shopping centre near Landmark, had bought him a dummy because he was 'a bit of a sook', the deceased had 'just flipped', they had ended up with their shirts off and the deceased kept getting mad at the accused because he would not take the dummy out of his mouth.

(c) The accused said he was trying to get 'weed' with the deceased from a 'shady guy' from the boat.

(d) The accused said the 'main' evidence was blood in the boot of the Ford and he had the deceased climb in the boot in the past, and it did not surprise him that there was possibly blood as the deceased had cut himself, it does not take much to bleed, the deceased was always drunk and you bleed more when you are drunk. When Hutchinson mentioned the deceased's DNA, the accused said the deceased had an injury on his hand, wrist or ankle and asked if it was a drop or a bucket, and it would have to be substantial.

(e) The accused said Police seem pretty confident the deceased is deceased, Hutchinson agreed, and the accused said he thought so too.

(f) The accused asked Hutchinson what Shier was charged with and asked what if Shier threw the accused under the bus without him having the opportunity to throw someone under the bus. He admitted he lied about dropping Shier home.

(g) The accused denied using bleach to clean the Ford but said he had used acetone to clean 'bat shit' off the car and used it inside the Ford to remove the residue from a sticker.

(h) The accused said AD could not have seen inside the boot of the Ford to say there was no carpet in it because there were no lights there and he would have seen there was never carpet in the boot. He wondered why AD would have thrown him under a bus, possibly because of a run in they had had.

(i) The accused referred to the phone conversation between him and his mother about Shier referred to at paragraph [97] above, saying it was just a 'sick sense of humour' and his mother watches crime shows and he tries to say disturbing things to keep her on her toes.

(j) The accused said he told Shier to smash her phone to cover up his throwing of LR's property onto the Stuart Highway.

(k) The accused said Police should be looking at Waldock.

[20]

[125] During the flight, Wheeler heard the accused tell Hutchinson that he did not want the bleach, 'she did' and, in relation to acetone, that red dirt gets stuck under the polish and he cleaned 'bat shit' off the Ford and to take raised lettering off it.
[126] Between 19 September 2022 and 7 March 2023, various searches were conducted for the deceased's body by Police. The searches were unsuccessful.
[127] On 20 May 2023, Waldock had a series of phone conversations with his former partner, SC, which were lawfully intercepted and recorded. They discussed the deceased and SC urged Waldock to tell Police or threatened to tell Police herself about Waldock seeing what had happened to the deceased. Waldock said he does not know the owner or driver of the Ford, but he is the deceased's good mate. Waldock denied knowing anything to SC, did not want to discuss it on the phone and asked why SC was making trouble for him. This occurred after SC was visited by Police.
[128] On 26 May 2023, Shier was arrested and extradited to the Northern Territory from Western Australia.
[129] On 26 May 2023, Shier gave a detailed statement to Police about the matter. Shier directed Police to where she said the deceased's body was left. She was in clear distress. At that location, Police found human bones scattered across a wide area. A crime scene was declared. On 27 May 2023, forensics officers attended and the human bones were collected, as were pieces of burnt fabric and clothing. An autopsy later found that 86% of the skeleton was present, including the skull. There were skeletal defects in the cranium, jaw, two ribs and the right arm, showing characteristics of peri-mortem blunt force trauma. The skull showed trauma from three impacts and the fracture to the forearm had the appearance of self-defence type injuries. DNA samples from the human bones matched the deceased.
[130] On 30 May 2023, Shier directed Police to the location of the murder, adjacent to the Robertson Barracks in Holtze on the road towards the Thorak Cemetery.
[131] On 2 June 2023, Police executed another search warrant at Staghorn Court and seized various items, including tent poles located without the tent. On 5 June 2023, the Ford was searched and a tool kit missing a pair of pliers was located.
[132] On 7 June 2023, Waldock was arrested.
[133] On 16 June 2023, Shier returned to Western Australia.
[134] On 4 March 2024, Waldock had a phone conversation with his brother that was recorded on the prison telephone system. Waldock said he knew what really happened that night and if anyone listened to his story he would be released. He said he was fearing for his own life and other lives from knowing what he knows, and yet he was in there with the murderer. He said 'the girl' was out because she is a liar. Waldock said he had his reasons why he did not talk, no one knows how he felt, everything he said was the truth from the start 'just parts left out because of fear'.

[26]

[138] Section 98(1) of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) ('Evidence Act') provides that evidence that two or more events occurred is not admissible to prove that a person did a particular act or had a particular state of mind on the basis that, having regard to any similarities in the events or the circumstances in which they occurred, or both, it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally unless: (a) the party seeking to adduce the evidence gave reasonable notice of its intention to do so; and (b) the court thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence, have significant probative value.
[139] No issue is taken by the Defence with the Crown's coincidence notice.
[140] It has been accepted that the same analysis in assessing the probative value of tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act applies to the requirement for significant probative value in relation to coincidence evidence in s 98.[1] 'Probative value' means the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.[2]
[141] Like tendency evidence, coincidence evidence will have significant probative value if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue to a significant extent.[3] A 'significant' probative value is a probative value which is important or of consequence.[4] The term 'significant' connotes something more than mere relevance but less than a substantial degree of relevance, and requires a judicial evaluation of whether the hypothetical jury would rationally think it likely that the evidence is important in relation to the determination of a fact in issue.[5]
[142] The assessment of the probative value of the evidence is to be determined by a trial judge on the assumption that the jury will accept the evidence.[6] This does not involve any assessment of the credibility or reliability of the evidence except in an extreme case in which the evidence is so inherently incredible, fanciful or preposterous that it could not be accepted by a rational jury and so does not meet the criterion of relevance.[7] It was not suggested by the Defence that the proposed coincidence evidence fell within that category. Nor does assessment of the probative value of coincidence evidence involve assessing the significance of the possibility of collusion or concoction which 'should be left to an occasion when it is raised in a concrete factual setting'.[8]

[27]

[143] The evidence of Waldock and Shier set out in paragraphs [136] (a) and (b) above about what the accused said he had just done to the deceased permits the inference that he had just cut the deceased's throat with a Stanley knife. The similarities in Shier's and Waldock's evidence about what the accused said he had done and the circumstances in which those things occurred make it highly improbable that Waldock and Shier, who are apparently independent witnesses, would have told the same lie coin[9]identally.9 In making this assessment, the possibility of collusion, collaboration or innocent infection is not relevant, unless those possibilities rise to a level where it would not be open to the jury rationally to accept th[10]evidence.10 No such possibility was identified by the Defence. Consequently, it is most unlikely that those two witnesses would give such similar accounts unless those accounts were both truthful and accurate. The evidence of Shier and Waldock about this conduct has strong probative value in making more likely the mechanism of the deceased's death and the accused's state of mind at that time, both of which are facts in issue.
[144] The Defence oral submission that coincidence evidence cannot be used to bolster the credibility of witnesses is inconsistent with the authorities referred to in footnote 9 above. It is clear that coincidence evidence can be used to do exactly that, as the Criminal Charge Book published by the Judicial College of Victoria makes clear in providing a direction to be given to the jury when coincidence evidence is used to bolster the credit of witnesses.[11]
[145] The evidence of Waldock set out in paragraph [136] (c) above about what the accused did to Waldock also has significant similarity to the accused's conduct towards the deceased as described by Waldock and Shier. Both involved the accused applying a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanely knife) to the same body part, the throat, with a state of mind of menace, namely an intention to harm or cause fear.
[146] The Defence argued that there was no significant similarity because one act involved a mere threat to do something and the other involved actually doing something and actually inflicting serious harm. This was said to have the effect that it was entirely plausible, or even likely, that the events occurred coincidentally.
[147] I do not accept that. A 'striking similarity' between events or conduct, or a 'system' or 'pattern' or an 'underlying unity' is not a pre-requisite to coincidence evidence having significant probative value.[12] Even acknowledging that the accused's conduct towards Waldock did not extend to actually cutting his throat, whereas the accused's statements to Waldock and Shier were to the effect that he had cut the deceased's throat, there is a high degree of similarity. The application of a bladed weapon to Waldock's throat is a positive act, an assault, involving the same kind of weapon or another bladed weapon, with an intention to cause fear that what was threatened by that conduct would be carried out. The weapon, the body part and the intent of menace are very similar, albeit that the conduct against the deceased went beyond that to actually cutting the deceased's throat.
[148] I am satisfied that it is highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him and then, shortly after, he applied a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanley knife) to Waldock's throat, and made threats to Waldock.
[149] The evidence set out in paragraph [136] (d) above, about the accused saying to his mother that he would cut Shier's throat and put her in the boot too also has significant similarity to the accused's statements about his conduct towards the deceased, as described by Waldock and Shier. This conversation occurred some three weeks or so after the alleged conduct towards the deceased, making the two events quite proximate in time. It is the case that this statement involved a threat, rather than an action. Nevertheless, the reference to the cutting of Shier's throat is very similar to the alleged conduct against the deceased. Further, it is not in dispute that the accused put the deceased's body into the boot of the Ford, meaning there is similarity in that respect as well. Further, the use of the word 'too' is important. It could readily be construed as a reference to having cut the deceased's throat.
[150] I am satisfied that it is highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him about his conduct towards the deceased and then, three weeks later, he threatened to cut Shier's throat and put her in the boot too.
[151] The evidence set out in paragraph [136] (e) above about the accused saying he had said he would cut the throat of LR's father also has significant similarity to the accused's statements about his conduct towards the deceased, as described by Waldock and Shier. This statement was made around 10 months after the alleged conduct and again involved a threat rather than action. By itself, it would not have had significant probative value as coincidence evidence. However, having regard to the other proposed coincidence evidence, it has significant probative value because the similarity in the references to the cutting of a person's throat as a threat or menacing behaviour makes it highly improbable to have been a coincidence that the accused said what Shier and Waldock attribute to him about his conduct towards the deceased and then, shortly after, applied a bladed weapon (an axe or a Stanley knife) to Waldock's throat and threatened him, and then three weeks later threated to cut Shier's throat and put her in the boot too, and then 10 months later spoke about threatening to cut the throat of his ex-partner's father.
[152] The proposed coincidence evidence therefore satisfies the requirements of s 98 of the Evidence Act.

[31]

[156] The requirement for danger of unfair prejudice is not satisfied by the mere possibility of such prejudice. There must be a real risk of prejudice by reason of the admission of the evidence.[16]
[157] Section 137 of the Evidence Act obliges the court to refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. Given the identical language used in s 101(2), which applies specifically to coincidence evidence, there is no utility in the Defence's additional reliance on s 137 to exclude the proposed coincidence evidence.
[158] The Defence argued that the proposed coincidence evidence would have a prejudicial effect on the accused arising from the jury hearing evidence of other criminality or threats by the accused unrelated to the offending. I reject that submission. First, the proposed coincidence evidence referred to in paragraphs [136] (a), (b) and (c) above is not unrelated to the offending, it relates specifically to the alleged killing of the deceased by the accused and the accused's threat to Waldock very shortly afterwards not to tell the Police about the alleged killing. It is difficult to imagine a closer relationship to the alleged offending. The proposed coincidence evidence referred to in paragraph [136] (d) above is relied on by the Crown as an implied admission by the accused to the alleged offending. Because of its terms, it has a clear and direct relationship with the alleged offending. Secondly, the Crown case involves brutal treatment of the deceased by the accused and a gruesome mode of killing. In that context, there is no real risk of the jury having any additional emotional reaction to evidence that the accused made threats to people and thereby committed some criminal act.
[159] Consequently, the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused from the proposed coincidence evidence is virtually non-existent, and its probative value is strong. Its probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice by a substantial degree.
[160] The proposed coincidence evidence is not inadmissible by operation of s 101(2) of the Evidence Act.

[44]

[170] The plurality in Hughes held (at [31]) that commonly, tendency evidence will bear similarity to the conduct in issue, but the admission of tendency evidence is not conditioned on that similarity. Further, the probative value of tendency evidence will vary depending on the issue that it is adduced to prove.
[171] As set out in paragraph [142] above, the assessment of probative value does not involve any assessment of the credibility or reliability of the evidence except in an extreme case in which the evidence is so inherently incredible, fanciful or preposterous that it could not be accepted by a rational jury and so does not meet the criterion of[19]elevance.19 Despite submissions that Waldock was a criminally concerned witness within the meaning of s 165 of the Evidence Act and his 'inconsistent' account that the bladed weapon was either a knife or an axe, ultimately it was not submitted by the Defence that the proposed tendency evidence fell within that category. Consequently, Waldock's status as a criminally concerned witness and his reference to either an axe or a knife can be put to one side. So too can the Defence submission that Waldock's narrative 'may or may not be accepted by a jury'.
[172] The Defence argued that the proposed tendency evidence does not have significant probative value because it 'is bootstraps', a submission which Defence counsel was unable to explain in oral submissions. The Defence also argued that the proposed tendency evidence is 'purely transactional in nature', i.e. a threat, and therefore not demonstrative of a 'tendency or intent to cause serious harm or death' to another person.
[173] The latter submission misses the point of the tendency reasoning to be relied on by the Crown, namely that the tendency evidence satisfies the jury that the accused has a tendency to act in the particular way, or have the particular state of mind, referred to in paragraph [163] above, to determining the likelihood that the accused acted in the particular way or had the particular state of mind on the occasio[20]in issue.20 That process of reasoning is similar to the manner in which an assessment of the probative value of the evidence is undertaken by the trial judge for the purpose of determining its admissibility, namely by first assessing the strength of the evidence in establishing the tendency and then considering the extent to which the tendency makes more likely the elements of the offen[21] charged.21
[174] As to whether the proposed tendency evidence is capable to a significant extent of establishing the alleged tendencies, the Defence argued that there is only a single instance of conduct in addition to the alleged conduct relied on.
[175] It is clear that direct evidence of a charged act can be used as part of the body of evidence relied on by the Crown to support an alleged tendency.[22] It is clear that conduct after the alleged offending may be used as part of the body of evidence relied on by the Crown to support an alleged tendency.[23] It is clear that tendency evidence may have significant probative value although it is made up of a single instance of conduct in addition to the charged conduct.[24] It is clear that the probative value of tendency evidence is strengthened by close proximity in time between the instance(s) of other conduct and the conduct in issue.[25]
[176] The proposed tendency evidence is capable, to a significant extent, of establishing the alleged tendencies. It comprises two instances of conduct, within minutes of each other, in which the accused applied a bladed weapon to the throat of a male friend or acquaintance with anger and menace. Even in the context of an alleged murder, such conduct is unusual and not commonplace.[26] The first stage of the process identified in Hughes is met.
[177] As to whether the alleged tendencies are capable to a significant extent of making more likely that the accused cut the deceased's throat with a knife, the fact that the proposed tendency evidence comprising the accused's conduct against Waldock was a threat rather than an act of cutting his throat does not deny that those tendencies would be capable to a significant extent of establishing that the accused, with menace, also applied a bladed weapon to the throat of the deceased. That conduct would make it significantly more likely that the accused cut the deceased's throat with a knife as the accused could not have done so unless he applied a bladed weapon to the throat of the deceased. In other words, the second stage of the process identified in Hughes is met.
[178] Consequently, the proposed tendency evidence has significant probative value.
[179] The proposed tendency evidence therefore satisfies the requirements of s 97 of the Evidence Act.

[60]

[197] Section 138(1) of the Evidence Act provides that evidence that was obtained (relevantly) improperly or in contravention of an Australian law, or in consequence of an impropriety, is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way the evidence was obtained.
[198] The Evidence Act does not contain a general or specific definition of 'impropriety'. In this context, the method or conduct in issue will only be 'improper' in the relevant sense if it is clearly inconsistent with the minimum standards which society should expect and require of law enforcement officers.[34]
[199] Section 138(2) provides that evidence of an admission that was made during or in consequence of questioning is taken to have been obtained improperly if the person conducting the questioning: (a) did, or omitted to do, an act in the course of the questioning even though he or she knew or ought reasonably to have known that the act or omission was likely to impair substantially the ability of the person being questioned to respond rationally to the questioning; or (b) made a false statement in the course of the questioning even though he or she knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement was false and that making the false statement was likely to cause the person who was being questioned to make an admission.
[200] Section 139(1) of the Evidence Act provides that, for the purposes of s 138(1)(a), evidence of a statement made by a person during questioning is taken to have been obtained improperly if: (a) the person was under arrest at the time; (b) the questioning was conducted by an investigating official who was at the time empowered to arrest the person; and (c) before starting the questioning the investigating official did not caution the person that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be used in evidence. Section 139(3) provides that the caution must be given in, or translated into, a language in which the person is able to communicate with reasonable fluency.

[62]

[201] On 29 March 2023, the accused was a sentenced prisoner at a correctional centre in Queensland.[35]
[202] Wheeler made arrangements with Queensland Police to assist with retrieving the accused from the correctional centre for the purpose of conducting an interview with the accused.[36]
[203] Queensland Police officers Clark and Stanborough were aware that Flynn and Wheeler were investigating a murder, following up leads and speaking to witnesses and were planning to conduct an interview with the accused.[37] Clark made the application for the removal order referred to below.[38] Flynn and Wheeler did not speak a great deal about the investigation with Clark and Stanborough.[39] Flynn conceded it was possible that he had mentioned to Clark and Stanborough the fact that the accused had given a previous statement in which he said he knew nothing about the deceased's disappearance.[40] As far as Wheeler could recall, there were no such discussions between him and Clark or him and Stanborough.[41] Flynn had prepared a written plan for how he would conduct the interview with the accused.[42] To Flynn, the accused seemed like a talker.[43] Flynn said he was not in the habit of pressing a suspect who indicated an unwillingness to participate in an interview because that would call into question the voluntariness of the process.[44]
[204] On 24 March 2023, a Queensland magistrate issued a removal order ('Removal Order') pursuant to s 401 of the Q Police Act, ordering the person in charge of the correctional centre in which the accused was detained to release the accused for a period of eight hours into the custody of Queensland Police and ordering the accused to be returned to the correctional centre as soon as reasonably practicable after the detention period of eight hours ended.[45]
[205] The Removal Order identified Clark as the Police officer who would have control of the accused whilst absent from the correctional centre, stated that the accused was suspected of having committed the indictable offence of murder under the Northern Territory Criminal Code, and stated that the purpose of the removal of the accused into Police custody was for questioning about the indictable offence at Rockhampton Police Station.
[206] On 29 March 2024, Clark and Stanborough retrieved the accused from the correctional centre and transported him to the Rockhampton Police Station.[46] During the recorded interview, Clark and Stanborough remained outside but close to the room in which the recorded interview was conducted.[47]
[207] On the drive with Clark and Stanborough to the Police station, the accused told them that his family was in Western Australia.[48] He later asked if he could call the deceased's mother to give her his condolences and was told by Clark: 'No, there'll be no phone calls.'[49] The accused then asked whether he was allowed to call his mother and was told by Clark: 'No social calls'. The accused said that his mother was his 'mental health person' and was one of his major supports. He then said he would definitely like a lawyer present.
[208] Flynn's understanding was that, because they were interviewing a person about Northern Territory offences, the accused was likely to be returned to a Northern Territory court and Flynn was a Northern Territory detective, the interview would be conducted in accordance with Northern Territory policy and procedure.[50] Wheeler's understanding was that the accused was in the custody of the Queensland Police, but he thought it was a Northern Territory Police matter, so they would be following the Northern Territory Police question and interview policy.[51]
[209] Prior to the recorded interview commencing, the accused asked to speak to a lawyer.[52] In response to that request, Flynn and Wheeler facilitated a phone call between the accused and a lawyer from Northern Territory Legal Aid.[53] That was not a lengthy conversation,[54] which lasted some seven minutes.[55] After that phone call, the accused indicated he would participate in a recorded interview, but would exercise his right to silence in response to some questions.[56]
[210] Just prior to commencement of the formal interview, the accused asked to have a legal representative present in the interview room.[57] The accused said the only lawyer known to him was in Western Australia and he did not know their name or contact details.[58] Flynn told the accused that it would be impracticable for a lawyer to attend from Western Australia and the accused indicated he was willing to proceed in their absence.[59]
[211] At the outset of the recorded interview, the accused was told that everything in the room was being recorded.[60] The accused stated that he had spoken to a lawyer over the phone, and the lawyer said it was in his best interests to remain silent and let Flynn and Wheeler talk.[61] Flynn told the accused that he was well entitled to the right not to speak to them, and he was not obliged or required to answer any of their questions unless he wished to do so. The accused said he did not understand why he could not have a lawyer present in the interview room. Flynn responded that he could not have a lawyer present because his lawyer was based in Western Australia. The accused asked if he could just have any lawyer, a Legal Aid lawyer. Flynn responded that they did not have access to a lawyer that could physically sit in the room or be on the phone throughout the interview, and said that was not the usual process that 'we' follow.[62] The accused said the lawyer had got him on edge by telling him to say nothing. Flynn responded that he could understand the accused's concern. The accused said he was not concerned, he was happy to speak to Police, even though it was scary that he was a suspect.[63]
[212] The recorded interview then proceeded as follows:

[84]

[224] There is no express power conferred by the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) ('NT Police Act') on Territory Police officers to question suspects in another jurisdiction.
[225] Whether a power of Northern Territory Police officers to question suspects in another jurisdiction is conferred by the NT Police Act or the common law is a complex legal question. That question was not argued before me, and it is not necessary to decide it, for the reasons set out below.
[226] The Defence argued that whilst the accused was in the custody of Queensland officer Clark pursuant to the Removal Order, the accused was questioned by Northern Territory officers Flynn and Wheeler pursuant to s 374(3) of the Q Police Act. The Crown did not resist that submission.
[227] The Removal Order was made under Ch 15, Part 2, Div 2 of the Q Police Act, specifically s 401. Div 2 applies to a person who is suspected of having committed an indictable offence and is in custody under (relevantly) the Queensland corrective services legislation (relevantly) under a sentence for a term of imprisonment (s 399(1)). Section 401 permits a magistrate to make a removal order if satisfied the custody of a Police officer is reasonably necessary for (relevantly) questioning the person about the offence. A removal order is an order for the removal of the person in custody in a prison to the custody of a police officer for (relevantly) questioning the person about the offence (s 399(2)). A removal order must state, amongst other things, the name of the police officer who will have control of the person while the person is absent from the prison (s 402(c)). The Removal Order stated that that person was Clark.
[228] Consequently, it is correct to say that the accused was in the custody and control of Clark from the time that he was collected at the correctional centre to the time that he was returned thereto.
[229] Section 374 of the Q Police Act applies to an offence (referred to as an 'extradition offence') that is an offence against the law of another State (which includes the Northern Territory[71]) and in that other State is an indictable offence for which the maximum penalty is at least two years imprisonment (s 374(1)).
[230] Section 374(2) provides that it is lawful for a police officer, without warrant, to arrest a person the police officer reasonably suspects (relevantly) has committed an extradition offence. The term 'police officer' is defined to include (relevantly) a police officer of a police force or service of another State or the Commonwealth only for Chapters 11 and 13, or only if such an officer is performing duties for the Queensland Police Service (Sch 6). Section 374 is contained in Chapter 14 of the Q Police Act.
[231] Section 374(3)(b) provides that 'the person' may be detained in custody under Chapter 15 and questioned in relation to the extradition offence by (relevantly) a member of the police force of the State where the offence happened as if the offence had been committed in Queensland.
[232] It appears from the words 'the person' and 'the extradition offence' in s 374(3)(b) that the power to detain a person under Chapter 15 and question them in relation to an extradition offence applies to a person who has been arrested pursuant to s 374(2).
[233] The Defence argued that, despite being informed by the Northern Territory Police officers that he was not under arrest for involvement in the death of the deceased, he was in fact under arrest, thereby bringing him within s 374(3) of the Q Police Act.
[234] The term 'arrest' is not defined in the Q Police Act. At common law, the requirements for a lawful arrest without warrant comprise: (a) words of arrest; (b) an act of arrest (or submission to arrest); and (c) informing the person of the reason for the arrest, which is subject to some limited exceptions which do not appear to apply here.[72]
[235] There was no evidence of any of these things in the ordinary sense. There was only the Removal Order which placed the accused into the custody of Clark for the purpose of questioning about the indictable Northern Territory offence of murder. Again, the matter was not fully argued before me, and it is not necessary to decide whether that brought the accused within s 374(2) and (3) of the Q Police Act because the Crown was prepared, for the purposes of the voir dire, to assume that it did.

[86]

[236] Chapter 15, Part 3 of the Q Police Act is headed: 'Safeguards ensuring rights of and fairness to persons questioned for indictable offences'. Part 3 applies only to indictable offences (s 414) and applies to a person if the person is in 'the company' of a police officer for the purpose of being questioned as a suspect about the person's involvement in the commission of an indictable offence (s 415(1)).
[237] Section 418(1) provides that, before a police officer starts to question a person for an indictable offence, the police officer must inform the person that they may: (a) telephone or speak to a friend or relative to inform the friend or relative of their whereabouts and ask the friend or relative to be present during questioning; and (b) telephone or speak to a lawyer of the person's choice and arrange, or attempt to arrange, for the lawyer to be present during the questioning.
[238] Section 418(2) provides that the police officer must delay the questioning for a reasonable time to allow the person to telephone or speak to a person mentioned in s 418(1). What is a reasonable time to delay questioning to allow the person to speak to a friend, relative or lawyer will depend on the particular circumstances (s 418(5)).
[239] Section 418(3) provides that if the person arranges for someone to be present, the police officer must delay the questioning for a reasonable time to allow the other person to arrive. What is a reasonable time to allow a friend, relative or lawyer to arrive depends on the particular circumstances (s 418(4)).
[240] Section 419(1) provides that if the person asks to speak to a friend, relative or lawyer, the investigating police officer must: (a) as soon as practicable, provide reasonable facilities to enable the person to speak to the other person and; (b) if the other person is a lawyer and it is reasonably practicable, allow that to happen where the conversation cannot be overheard.
[241] Section 419(2) provides that if the person arranges for another person to be present during questioning, the investigating police officer must also allow the other person to be present and give advice to the person during the questioning. The other person may be excluded from being present if they are unreasonably interfering with the questioning (s 419(3)).

[88]

[242] Contrary to s 418(1)(a) of the Q Police Act, the accused was not informed that he may contact a relative or friend to inform them of his whereabouts and to ask them to be present whilst he was being questioned.
[243] The Crown argued that this entitlement did not apply to the accused because he had previously been arrested by Queensland Police for unrelated offences and would have on that occasion been informed as required by s 418(1)(a). I reject that submission. The provision is directed to the suspect informing a relative or friend that they are in the company of a Police officer for questioning and asking that relative or friend to be present during the questioning. Being informed about such contact at the time of an earlier unrelated arrest does not fulfil the requirements of the provision.
[244] The accused had, in fact, asked Clark and Stanborough if he could call his mother, which was refused. From what the accused said, his intention in wanting to call her was not for the purpose of making her aware of his whereabouts and asking if she could be present. It was for her general support of his mental health. The accused's mother was in Western Australia and, in all probability, could not have attended herself. Nevertheless, the accused may have had some other relative or friend available to him who could have attended if he had been made aware of his right to make a call.
[245] Further, contrary to s 418(1)(b), the accused was not informed that he may contact a lawyer of his choice to arrange, or attempt to arrange, for them to be present whilst he was being questioned.
[246] These failures to inform were contraventions of an Australian law within s 138 of the Evidence Act.
[247] The accused did indicate a wish to speak to his lawyer, but that lawyer was from Western Australia and the accused could not remember his name or contact details. The accused did speak to a lawyer, and was advised to remain silent, but that lawyer was from the Northern Territory. The accused did ask to have a lawyer present whilst he was being questioned, but was told, without any enquiries being made, that that could not be facilitated.
[248] The entitlement under s 419(2) to have a lawyer present during questioning only arises if the person to be questioned arranges for their lawyer to be present. There was no evidence about any arrangements between Queensland Police and the relevant legal aid services in Queensland for the provision of legal representatives to be present when a suspect is being questioned.
[249] Nevertheless, the failure to inform the accused of his entitlements under the Q Police Act meant that no steps were taken, or enquiries made, to permit him to arrange, or attempt to arrange, to have a lawyer present during questioning. Given the entitlements under the Q Police Act, that was inconsistent with the minimum standards which society should expect and require of law enforcement officers. It was, therefore, an 'impropriety' within s 138 of the Evidence Act.

[90]

[250] Section 138(1) requires a chain of causation to be shown between the impropriety or contravention and the obtaining of the evidence.[73] It has been held that it is appropriate to apply the 'but for' test of causation.[74]
[251] For the reasons set out in paragraphs [220] to [223] above, I do not accept that there was any causal link between the contraventions and impropriety referred to above and the obtaining of the things the accused said in the recorded interview. I am not satisfied that but for the contraventions and impropriety, the accused would not have participated in the recorded interview and the things the accused said would not have been said. Based on my own observations of the recorded interview, and the things the accused said in it, I agree with Flynn's perception that the accused wanted to participate in the recorded interview to hear what Police had accumulated in terms of evidence against him. Contrary to the Defence submission, I do not accept that that perception had any bearing on Flynn's conduct of the interview other than his forming the view, with which I agree, that the accused's participation in it was voluntary and he freely chose to answer questions or not as he saw fit.
[252] Furthermore, I am not satisfied that either Flynn or Wheeler: (a) knew or ought reasonably to have known that their failures to inform the accused of his entitlements under the Q Police Act and to make enquiries about whether the accused's requests for a lawyer to be present could be facilitated were likely to impair substantially the ability of the accused to respond rationally to the questioning; or (b) made a false statement about the accused's entitlements even though they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the statement was false and that the false statement was likely to cause the accused to make an admission. That is, I am not satisfied that any admissions in the recorded statement are taken to have been obtained improperly by operation of s 138(2) of the Evidence Act.
[253] I find that Flynn and Wheeler were unaware of the entitlements of a person being questioned under the Q Police Act. I find that they were not matters which Flynn and Wheeler ought reasonably to have known, given the uncertainties about the application of the relevant provisions to the accused's situation to which I have referred above. Their assumption that the Northern Territory law and policies applied to their questioning of the accused in relation to a Northern Territory offence was reasonable in the circumstances. That finding is supported by the expressed understanding of Queensland Police officer Clark that the interview was not being conducted under the Q Police Act and those entitlements did not apply.[75]
[254] For the above reasons, the recorded interview does not fall within s 138 of the Evidence Act.

[92]

[255] Given my conclusions above, it is not strictly necessary to consider further the operation of s 138. Nevertheless, lest I be wrong about those conclusions, I will do so briefly on the assumption (contrary to my conclusions above) that I found that there was a causal link between the contraventions and/or the impropriety referred to above and the accused's participation in the recorded interview and the things he said in it.
[256] Once an accused has satisfied the court that evidence was obtained improperly, the Crown must persuade the court that the balance favours the admission of the evidence.[76]
[257] In conducting that balancing exercise, s 138 is not expressly concerned with ensuring a fair trial and is not directed to relieving the accused from unfairness resulting from the relevant impropriety.[77] The prejudice to the individual accused will almost always be present but will rarely be material.[78] The fundamental concern of the section is to ensure that the impropriety involved in obtaining the evidence is balanced against the public interest in successfully prosecuting alleged offenders.[79]
[258] Section 138(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of the matters the court may consider in the exercise of the discretion. The most important consideration in a case such as the present will be the nature and seriousness of the improper conduct engaged in by the Police officer.[80] The authorities draw a distinction between the two extreme categories of case. At one end of the spectrum there are those improprieties which constitute 'isolated and merely accidental non-compliance', and at the other end of the spectrum are cases in which the incriminating statement has been procured by a deliberate or reckless disregard of the law on the part of the law officers concerned.
[259] The impropriety in this case was constituted essentially by: (a) a failure to inform the accused of his entitlements to speak to a friend, relative or lawyer to try to arrange for them to be present during the interview; and (b) a failure to delay the interview to permit the accused, who asked to have a lawyer present, to seek to arrange for a lawyer to be present.
[260] The right to silence is a fundamental civil liberty, as reflected in the fact that Art 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence. At the level of principle, any impropriety which denies or affects a suspect's right to silence is grave.[81] This part of my reasons assumes that the impropriety affected the accused's right to silence.
[261] However, the strength of the causal link between the contravention or impropriety and the evidence bears on the weighing of the public interest in not giving curial approval or encouragement to the unlawful conduct.[82] For the reasons referred to above about the accused's willingness to participate without a lawyer present, I find that if there is a causal link, it is tenuous at best, making its admission unlikely to convey curial approval or encouragement of the contraventions and impropriety.
[262] It certainly cannot be said that the contraventions and impropriety were deliberate or even reckless in nature. There was no mala fides on the part of the Police officers. This was not an unlawfully compelled interrogation going to the very root of the administration of justice.[83] Nor was it a case of persistent Police importunity after the subject of the questioning had repeatedly indicated he or she was exercising the right to silence, and that right was undermined and otherwise derogated.[84] At the outset of the recorded interview, the accused was clearly indicating a willingness to proceed with the interview, with an expressed intention to stay silent. At that point, he was in no way declining to proceed. That he subsequently chose not to stay silent in response to some questions, but not others, was an informed choice he made based on, it may be inferred, the subject matter of the questions.
[263] Both the probative value and importance of the recorded interview are considerable in these proceedings. The assessment of probative value requires an analysis of the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the proof of facts. Here, in a formal and recorded interview conducted some 10 months after the deceased's death, the accused persisted in numerous lies denying any involvement in the death and denying any attempt to cover up his involvement, including in the face of evidence obtained by Police which was inconsistent with his lies. It is powerful evidence demonstrating consciousness of guilt (as dealt with below) and impacting upon the jury's assessment of the accused's credibility if he were to give evidence.
[264] The charged offence is most serious. The mandatory penalty for the offence is imprisonment for life.
[265] The reasons for the non-compliance in this case were that Flynn and Wheeler were interviewing a suspect in another jurisdiction which had a different legal entitlement to that which applied in the Northern Territory, they erroneously assumed that the Northern Territory entitlements would apply and failed to make enquiries to confirm that position. There was no considered intention to flout the relevant requirement, and this is not repeated or ongoing conduct on the part of Northern Territory Police. As both Flynn and Wheeler indicated, this was the first and only interview of a suspect they had conducted in another jurisdiction in many years of policing.
[266] For the above reasons, I would have been satisfied that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in this way.

[105]

[280] On 20 March 2023, Clark was tasked with assisting Northern Territory Police to have the accused made available from the correctional centre for a recorded interview to be conducted by them.[86] Clark sought and obtained approval for that assistance including a removal order from the Detective Inspector of the Queensland Homicide Investigation Unit.[87] Clark's evidence was that the approval was subject to the conditions that two armed investigators from the Homicide Investigation Unit would escort and remain with the accused, who would be restrained for the duration of his removal, and that any contact with the accused would be recorded via audio and/or video.[88] Stanborough's understanding was that the decision to record the transport was made before they arrived at the correctional centre.[89] Stanborough said he could not exactly remember when the decision was made, but it was a decision that he and Clark made together.[90] Stanborough said that potentially his boss might also have been involved in the decision, but he did not know.[91]
[281] Pursuant to the Removal Order which Clark had obtained, Clark and Stanborough took the accused into their custody at the correctional centre and transported him to the Police Station in a police vehicle.[92]
[282] Clark made an audio recording of the drive to the Police Station with the accused, of which Stanborough was aware.[93] The recording was for the purposes of transparency of the investigation, to show that the accused was treated fairly and not questioned by Queensland Police in relation to the alleged murder offence whilst he was in their custody.[94]
[283] Clark and Stanborough considered their role to be safely transporting the accused to where Northern Territory Police could offer the accused the opportunity to take part in a recorded interview.[95] They had no intention of interviewing the accused during the transportation.[96]
[284] Clark's reasons for recording the conversation during the transportation were that recording was one of the requirements of the approval, there were rules requiring no rewards, benefits or anything the accused was not allowed to have to be given to a prisoner, it was a serious investigation and he did not want any allegations to be made that they had questioned him, and the accused was to be treated fairly and looked after by them, all of which the recording would show.[97] Stanborough's understanding was that the recording was made to ensure they could not be accused of any impropriety towards the accused, they did not question him and he could not make any accusations against them in relation to their conduct.[98]
[285] Recording the transport of prisoners is an ordinary and regular occurrence, Clark had done it countless times and Stanborough had done it 'a few'.[99] It was standard practice in Queensland to record the transportation of prisoners.[100]
[286] Clark did not inform the accused that the transport was being audio recorded, saying there is no requirement to inform a prisoner of that.[101] He said it was common for him not to inform prisoners of that, it was lawful to record a conversation in Queensland and it was simply for the purposes of transparency to address any false allegations that might be made by the prisoner.[102] Clark said that if the accused had been suspected of a Queensland murder charge and was being transported, he would not have informed him he was recording the transport.[103] Stanborough said that he does not normally inform transported people that they are being recorded as it is his experience that people expect to be recorded.[104]
[287] Stanborough said that after the accused asked for access to a lawyer at the correctional centre, he did not tell the accused that they were recording the transport and anything he said could be used against him in a criminal proceeding.[105] He did not say that because they were not questioning him in relation to the offence he was going to be asked about by the Northern Territory Police.[106] Stanborough said they made small talk with the accused on the 30 minute drive, nothing more.[107] It was put to Stanborough that the accused had provided a number of pieces of information relating to an incident in respect of which he was suspected of murder and Stanborough said he had no idea what the accused was talking about and whatever he said meant nothing to Stanborough.[108]
[288] Clark had not included any reference to the audio recording in his Police notebook or his statement of September 2023 because he did not think that the recording contained any evidence relevant to the matter.[109] He informed Flynn about it very early on after the recorded interview was completed.[110] Clark denied that he had not made a statement about it until very recently, and when he did had noted that recording conversations by a party to them is lawful in Queensland, because he was concerned that what he had done was unlawful.[111] He said that he added that part to the addendum statement because this was a Northern Territory matter, he would not have mentioned the lawfulness in relation to a Queensland matter because it is known in Queensland, and he wanted to make sure it was clear for Northern Territory courts.[112]
[289] When the accused was met by Clark and Stanborough at the correctional centre, Stanborough told the accused they were not going to question him as he did not know things in detail about their investigation.[113] He explained that Northern Territory Police had engaged them to remove him and he would be returned to the correctional centre by 4pm. The accused volunteered that he knew what it was about, it was about his mate who disappeared.[114] Stanborough told him that they were just facilitating his removal and were not questioning him about the offence because he did not know about the offence. The accused said there was no offence. Stanborough said that they were not questioning him, but Northern Territory Police were in Queensland to talk to him.
[290] The accused asked if he was allowed to have a lawyer present and Stanborough said that is a conversation he needs to have with the Northern Territory Police.
[291] The accused volunteered that he guessed it was real, they have not found 'him', 'he' is not coming home.[115] The accused volunteered that he knew he would be questioned at some point because he was one of the last people to see 'him', but he was still holding out hopes that 'he' was 'holed up somewhere with some sheila or something like that'.
[292] Clark asked the accused what the correctional centre was like, what he did during the day, what happens at the prison farm, where the accused's family were, and how his health was. The accused responded to those questions.
[293] In response to the last question, the accused said that his mental health was not the greatest due to having his 'ex' stand up in court and admitting that she pushed him to breaking point where he 'sort of snapped'.
[294] He said:[116]

[109]

[296] The Defence argued that the Court should exercise its discretion to refuse to admit the recorded interview under s 90 of the Evidence Act because, having regard to the circumstances in which the two statements were made, it would be unfair to the accused to use the evidence.
[297] The Defence argued that the recorded conversation in its entirety was prejudicial to the accused (for example because he discussed the criminal matters for which he had been sentenced) and it was impossible to isolate the portions the Crown seeks to rely on and extract them out of context. I disagree. The two portions are not preceded or followed by any significant explanatory content and are easily understandable without the remainder of the conversation.
[298] The Defence also argued that it would be unfair to the accused to use the evidence in circumstances where he was not told, from the very beginning of the transport, that his conversations with police were being recorded and anything he said might have been used in evidence against him.
[299] I do not accept that. I make the following findings on the basis of the evidence recited above.
[300] First, there was, reasonably on the part of Clark and Stanborough, neither an intention nor an expectation that the accused would provide them with any information which might be admissible against him as evidence. Their sole purpose was to transport the accused to a Police station for questioning by Northern Territory Police officers.
[301] Secondly, the recording of interactions during transportation of prisoners by Queensland Police is lawful, routine and standard practice and it is ordinarily done, not to gather evidence that might fall from the mouth of the person being transported, but to ensure an independent record of those interactions in order to meet any allegations of unfair or improper treatment of the person being transported. It was for this reason that Defence did not press any argument in reliance on s 138 of the Evidence Act.
[302] Thirdly, it was a condition of the approval given by the Detective Inspector of the Homicide Investigation Unit to obtain the Removal Order that the accused's interactions with Clark and Stanborough during the transportation be recorded. I do not accept the Defence submissions that the evidence about this was 'confused' or 'wishy-washy'. Stanborough acknowledged that his recollection about this was not clear, but Clark's evidence was clear and unshaken in cross-examination. I infer that this condition of the approval was essentially for the same purpose as recordings of transportations are made generally.
[303] Fourthly, it is common or usual that Queensland Police do not inform people they are transporting that their interactions are being recorded. I infer that to be the case because the purpose of the recording is not to gather evidence, the officers transporting are not engaging in questioning of the suspect and it is not expected that, in the ordinary course, a person being transported would volunteer information which may be used in evidence. Again, I anticipate that it was for this reason that Defence did not press any argument in reliance on s 138 of the Evidence Act.
[304] Fifthly, I do not accept that there was any basis upon which to infer that Clark or Stanborough knew or feared that they had done the wrong thing in not informing the accused that they were recording. As I have found, they did not do the wrong thing in recording the interaction with the accused or not informing him that they were doing so; they followed standard operating procedures. Furthermore, there was nothing untoward in the disclosure of the recording by Clark in his addendum statement made in July 2025. The fact of the making of the audio recording was disclosed in Stanborough's statement made in September 2023, and the fact of the audio recording was disclosed to Flynn shortly after the recorded interview.
[305] Sixthly, the accused volunteered the two statements sought to be relied on by the Crown. They were not said in response to any questions by Clark or Stanborough.
[306] Seventhly, Clark and Stanborough were not in any position to know, and did not know, that the two statements made by the accused were relevant or significant in the investigation or the alleged offence of murder the subject of the investigation. Aside from the fact that the Northern Territory Police were investigating a murder, they were not aware of any of the details of the investigation. Further, the first statement was, effectively, a denial of any involvement in the deceased's disappearance and the second statement was, on its face, wholly unrelated to the alleged offence of murder.
[307] For these reasons, s 90 is not enlivened.

[116]

[317] The High Court added (at [74]) that there may be cases where post-offence conduct, such as the accused's flight or concealment, is so out of proportion to the level of culpability involved in a lesser offence that it might be found by the jury to be more consistent with the more serious offence charged. There may be cases where an accused goes to such lengths to conceal the death or to distance himself or herself from it so as to provide a basis on which the jury might conclude that the accused had committed an extremely serious crime and so warrant a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the accused for the death and the concurrent existence in the accused of the intent necessary for murder. The High Court added that there is no hard and fast rule that evidence of post-offence concealment and lies is always intractably neutral as between murder and manslaughter.
[318] The High Court held (at [76]) that it was open to the jury in the case to regard the lengths to which the respondent went to conceal his wife's body and to conceal his part in her demise as beyond what was likely, as a matter of human experience, to have been engendered by a consciousness of having unintentionally killed his wife.
[319] The Defence sought to distinguish the decision in Baden-Clay from the present case on the basis that, in Baden-Clay, the accused had given evidence denying any role in the death of his wife, whereas here, the accused had entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter.
[320] That is not any sensible basis for distinction. The High Court's decision and the principle cited from The Queen v White did not turn on the respondent's denial of any involvement in killing his wife.
[321] In Gale v Tasmania,[119] the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an argument very similar to that of the accused. The applicant in that case submitted that the evidence of his post-offence conduct was equally consistent with his crime having been manslaughter rather than murder. Reference was made (at [25]-[27]) to The Queen v White and Baden-Clay.
[322] Reference was also made (at [28]) to a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in The Queen v Ciantar.[120] In that case, the appellant contended that evidence of his flight from the scene of a fatal collision was equally consistent with a consciousness of guilt of less serious driving offences such as drink driving. The Court of Appeal held (at [39]) that, even allowing that a possible explanation of the post-offence conduct was that he was conscious he had committed one or more lesser offence as opposed to the offence charged, it does not follow that the post-offence conduct could not be left to the jury as something which was capable of supporting an inference that the applicant was conscious that he had committed the offence charged. The Court of Appeal added (at [40]) that there may be some cases in which post-offence conduct is equally consistent with two or more possible offences or is otherwise intractably neutral and it may then not be open on the totality of the evidence to draw an inference that the accused had a consciousness of guilt of some particular conduct. But where such lies or conduct are considered in the context of all of the evidence, it is not to be assumed that it will usually be so. Indeed, in the scheme of things, it is not likely to be so in many cases.
[323] In this case, considered in the context of the other evidence in the case, particularly the direct evidence from Shier and Waldock about what the accused did to the deceased, this is not a case in which the accused's post-offence conduct is equally consistent with the offences of murder and manslaughter or otherwise intractably neutral. It is a rational inference that the accused moved and set fire to the deceased's body, threatened the eye witnesses to prevent them from reporting the death to Police, and lied about his involvement in the deceased's death for a lengthy period of time because of an awareness that the injury he had inflicted to the deceased (a cut throat) implicated him in a murder rather than an unintentional death.
[324] Consequently, it is properly for the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence as a whole, whether the post-offence conduct of the accused is related to the crime of murder rather than to the crime of manslaughter, and to consider how much weight, if any, such evidence should be accorded in the final determination of guilt or innocence. To omit this evidence on the basis relied on by the Defence would, in this case, constitute a usurpation of the jury's exclusive fact-finding role.
[325] The evidence sought to be relied on by the Crown as evidence of consciousness of guilt is admissible for that purpose.

The King v Hunt [2025] NTSC 76

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (248 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (18)