ZT v R

Police interviews

1. On Monday 2 September 2019 Detective Wallace phoned the applicant and asked to speak to him in person. A meeting was provisionally arranged for later in the week, to occur in Townsville (where the applicant was living). It occurred on Thursday 5 September 2019. It seems that prior to the interview commencing the applicant was placed under arrest by Queensland police. The interview was conducted by Detective Wallace and another New South Wales detective, Detective Glynn. The interview was recorded by video in the usual way in an ERISP. It occurred over about 3.5 hours, including breaks. It was conducted fairly. Relatively early in the interview the applicant was told that the police had recordings of his phone conversations.
2. After the interview the applicant was charged with murder. The next day he was taken before a court in Queensland for an extradition order. The applicant then told the two detectives certain things, which led to them conducting a further interview that day, 6 September 2019. This interview started with the applicant saying that "I was forced to kill William" and that "I strangled him [with] fishing line", although that story, too, changed over the course of the interview.
3. There is little point in reciting much of what the applicant said in the two interviews. Early in the first interview he stated that "I didn't know he was missing until you guys turned up and started asking questions to my family", and that "I didn't know he was murdered until … about 15 minutes ago", which were lies. Over the course of the interviews he told various versions of events. Some of his answers were long and rambling. The trial judge observed in his remarks on sentence that "the fabrications engaged in by the offender were so feeble and obvious that doubts may properly remain about the existence of an intellectual disability". There is no evidence of intellectual disability, and that suggestion can be set aside, but his Honour's characterisation of the fabrications is apt.
4. Similarly, in cross-examination Detective Wallace agreed that the two ERISPs were "a series of rambling falsehoods", that there may have been some truth woven into them, but "on the whole they were totally unreliable unless corroborated by independent material". This evidence was not objected to, although its relevance is doubtful. As it happens, though, it is also an apposite characterisation.
5. The applicant had an obvious incentive to lie to the police. At first, he was seeking to avoid being found to have any involvement. As the interviews progressed, he was flailing around with different versions of events. Apart from showing that the applicant was entirely prepared to lie when it suited him, little reliance can be placed on any details given in the interviews. It is perhaps notable that he denied having cut the throat of the deceased, even when the calls where he had admitted doing so were replayed.
6. The nature of the interviews do raise a question about whether the applicant had taken drugs before, at least, the first interview. As noted above, he had told his mother that he planned to do so. During the course of the interview he said that he was addicted to the drug ice and that he had "had a shot this mornin". Detective Wallace gave evidence that in his opinion the applicant had not exhibited any signs of intoxication, but fairly agreed that sometimes addicts are capable of covering up their drug addiction. To my mind it does not greatly matter whether or not the applicant had taken ice on the morning of his first interview; either way, it was, as Detective Wallace said, a series of rambling falsehoods.

The Crown's case

1. The Crown identified two ways the accused may be involved in the crime of murder: joint criminal enterprise and extended joint criminal enterprise. At the request of the applicant, a third variant was also put to the jury involving manslaughter. The applicant was found guilty of murder and it is not necessary to consider that variant here. Considering it would make no difference in any event, where any such case still depended on the Crown establishing the involvement of the applicant in Watson's attack.
2. In relation to joint criminal enterprise, it was accepted that it was necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between the applicant and Watson to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased. Such an agreement need not be expressed and can be inferred from words and conduct.
3. In relation to extended joint criminal enterprise, it was accepted that it was necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant and Watson agreed to assault the deceased, and that the applicant foresaw or knew of the possibility that during the assault Watson might kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, with the intent to do so.
4. Both Crown theories thus require some agreement between Watson and the applicant that they would at the least assault the deceased. In the circumstances of this case both also involved the applicant being present during the murder.
5. In this Court the Crown emphasised that it was not required to prove the specific manner in which the applicant was killed or the applicant's precise involvement in the deceased's death: see eg The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35. That may be accepted.
6. As outlined above, no witness evidence points in any material way to a conclusion that the applicant was a party to the murder, in the sense of having participated in it in some way or having agreed to doing so. There is no specific evidence of any pre-death agreement at all. The Crown's case rises or falls on the significance of the various admissions made by the applicant himself.
7. In closing address to the jury the Crown summarised seven variations of the applicant's involvement as described by him: 1. The first was that he did not know anything about the murder. This was said in the first ERISP and implied in some earlier phone calls. It can be accepted that this version was a lie. 2. The applicant told his mother and father that he cut the deceased's throat. 3. "Fight and kill or you die now", as told to his father on 1 September 2019. This version involved him being threatened by Watson with the 9mm Glock pistol. 4. Early in the first ERISP the applicant said Watson told him he had caught the deceased molesting his daughter, and said the applicant had three choices: "You leave my house right now, never speak a word of it, you help me with a job, or I put you where I'm, in the same spot". The Crown said to the jury that he knew very well what Watson was talking about. 5. In the second ERISP the applicant said it was Ms Watson that wanted Watson to kill the deceased. He said she yelled out to them "[d]o it already, it's taking too long". 6. In the first ERISP, towards the end of the interview, he said that Watson shot the deceased. This occurred after the applicant had an argument, Watson threatened the applicant with a knife, and the deceased stood up for the applicant. The applicant then got his 9mm pistol and shot the deceased in the neck. 7. In both ERISPs the applicant told police that fishing line was used to kill the deceased. In the first interview at one point he suggested Watson used this to kill the deceased, having told the applicant to fetch it. At a later point in the interview he said he was sent to fetch it but Watson then shot the deceased. The second interview was held because it seems that the applicant had told the detectives that he had strangled the deceased himself with fishing line. That evolved to the applicant grabbing the decease and strangling him (it was not clear if this involved fishing line or a headlock), and that Watson considered this was taking too long so stabbed the deceased in the chest.
8. That the first version was a lie does nothing to establish his involvement in the murder. Of the second version - cutting the throat - the Crown said "[w]hile this version is possible, it's unlikely … due to what Samone Watson told the police about the lack of any obvious injury or blood around William Chaplin's neck". The third version involved the applicant being threatened with a gun. The Crown put to the jury that talk of the 9mm Glock was "probably a lie", there being no other evidence that Watson had such a gun. The fifth version - that the murder was sought by Ms Watson - is inconsistent with her evidence and seems ridiculous. That is so, at least, on the premise that Ms Watson was a credible witness, which was very much the Crown's position. The sixth version also involved use of the Glock. Further, the accused said on this version that there was "blood everywhere" and with Ms Watson being inside in the house at the time. Both of those aspects are inconsistent with Ms Watson's evidence.
9. The Crown thus focused on the fourth and seventh versions, tending to amalgamate them. The Crown's case at trial was summarised in the closing submissions as follows: Paul Watson had told the accused that he had caught William Chaplin sexually interfering with … his daughter. Paul Watson told the accused that William Chaplin "had got to go". Paul Watson must have told [the applicant] what he was going to do to William Chaplin because, although [the applicant] told police he had nothing to do with William Chaplin's murder, he said, "I knew what was going to happen." That, the Crown says, is [the applicant] telling the police that he knew that Mr Chaplin was going to be killed. Mr Watson offered him choices; leave, take part or end up with Mr Chaplin. [The applicant] had heard Watson and William Chaplin arguing in the house. [The applicant] chose to take part. Mr Watson told [the applicant] to go to the shed, get some fishing line and then wait for him and William Chaplin in the round yard. He was to sit on the tyres and he was to wait. That's what he did. He went to the round yard, got on the tyres and waited. When Paul Watson and William Chaplin arrived, when he was told to do so [the applicant] jumped from where he'd been sitting and took William Chaplin to the ground so that Watson could stab him.
10. The Crown representative also said the following in his closing submissions (emphasis added): [The applicant] doesn't get to pick and choose what is the truth and what is not from what he told police and others. Everything that is reasonably possible could be the truth. Even though his versions are inconsistent, the Crown says that those accounts are powerful evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the intentional killing of William Chaplin.
11. The italicised sentence is an odd and problematic thing to say. It is not entirely clear what was meant but it carries a flavour of undermining the standard of proof. In any event, the point is irrelevant to this Court's undertaking its task of assessing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
12. The applicant submitted to this Court that the Crown had arbitrarily, in the absence of evidentiary support, combined the fourth and seventh versions and presented it as accurately describing the applicant's involvement in the deceased's murder. There is force in this submission.
13. It is significant that the fourth and seventh versions arose out of the two police interviews. As explained above, what was said in those interviews would not readily be accepted as reliable. Senior counsel appearing for the Crown on appeal sought to put the case at a higher level of generality than focusing on these various versions, noting that it was not necessary to identify the manner in which the murder was carried out. Accepting that, it remains the case that the Crown case is founded on the admissions of the applicant. What must be found in those admissions is evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was some agreement between Watson and the applicant that they would at the least assault the deceased, with the applicant being present during the murder.
14. The Crown also put the following to the jury: If you accept any of the versions that include [the applicant] being in the round yard with Mr Paul Watson, then you would find that there was an agreement between he and Paul Watson to kill, to inflict grievous bodily harm or to seriously assault William Chaplin. After all, what was [the applicant] doing in the round yard if not going along with what Paul Watson asked him to do?
15. This submission, too, is problematic. There was certainly evidence that the applicant was potentially under the influence of Watson. If it was found that the applicant was present when the deceased was killed, that gives some basis for arguing that there may have been an agreement between them. But it is certainly not conclusive of it. The applicant may have been directed by Watson to have been present. The applicant may have stood by whilst the brutal act was done. Those facts of themselves would not suffice to make him a party to the murder. They do not establish that he knew what was going to occur, let alone that he had agreement to participate in (at least) an assault.
16. As noted above, the Crown made much of comments by the applicant that if the worst came to the worst he would be "blowing it back" on Watson. This submission, also, was overstated. There is no doubt that Watson was, in the Crown's words, the "orchestrator of the death of William Chaplin". There was, thus, a lot to pin on him on any view. That the applicant would seek to blame Watson was justifiable. That does not necessarily exculpate the applicant. But nor does it necessarily inculpate him. Consistently with that understanding, at least one of the "blow it back" remarks was made to Ms Watson suggesting that they both take that approach. Yet the Crown's case was that Ms Watson was only involved as an accessory after the fact. If she might want to blow it back on Watson though she was only an accessory so, too, might the applicant. The Crown said below that the applicant saw "a way out by painting Paul Watson as that monster and claiming that he was forced into whatever he did to William Chaplin by Paul Watson". But Paul Watson was a monster. Painting him as such was not inculpatory.
17. One other point should be noted before addressing the reliability of the admissions. A strong theme of the Crown's address - to a fault - was to emphasise all the lies that the applicant had told. That he had told so many lies completely undermined his credibility. Yet, except insofar as the lies could be used as evidence of the applicant's consciousness of guilt, they did nothing to establish his involvement in the murder. The Crown did put to the jury that four identified lies could be used in that way: 1. in telling the police in a phone call early in the investigation that "I just want to know what the hell is going on", when he knew what was going on; 2. in saying something similar to Detective Wallace in a phone call on 22 August 2019; 3. further lies to the Albury detective to whom he spoke on Sunday 1 September 2019; 4. lies told during the first ERISP that he had not known until recently that the deceased was missing and had been murdered.
18. As was correctly identified at the trial, in order for lies to be evidence of consciousness of guilt one of the requirements the jury had to be satisfied of was that the reason for the lie was because he feared that the truth would implicate him in the commission of the offence. Thus the Crown said that the applicant "tells these lies because he knows that if he tells the truth about any of them, it may inculpate him in the murder of William Chaplin". The problem with this submission is that the lies are equally explicable as manifesting a concern that the truth would implicate the applicant in being an accessory after the fact. These lies do not necessarily implicate him in involvement in the murder.

Reliability of admissions

1. Of the various versions of his involvement given by the applicant the most plausible, by some measure, is that he cut the throat of the deceased. He told this to each of his parents, separately, nine days apart. This occurred soon after he learned of the investigation. His admission to his mother occurred in the phone call where he appeared first to learn of the investigation. He had no apparent reason to lie to his parents and it might readily be concluded that he would be prepared to confide in them. When he made these statements he did not appear concerned about the possibility of phone intercepts.
2. As indicated above, these admissions would provide a compelling basis for finding the applicant guilty but for one thing: they probably were not true, as the Crown itself accepted below. Ms Watson was clear that she did not notice any damage, cut or bruising to his neck, nor blood on his neck. It is true that on her evidence she saw the body about midday when the deceased had perhaps been dead for many hours (she had left the previous afternoon). That delay does not undermine the fact that she said she was positive that she saw no cuts to the throat, and that she was sure that if the deceased's throat had been cut she would have seen it. Nor can this evidence be explained away by saying we do not know how close she got to the body. She was close enough to say that she saw a small nick above the right eye of the deceased and that his eyes were open and staring up.
3. As addressed above, the various other versions put by the applicant are also problematic.
4. The Crown submitted both below and on appeal that it was open to the jury to find that the various accounts given by the applicant "taken as a whole, despite the inconsistencies, were 'powerful evidence of the accused's direct involvement in the intentional killing of [the deceased]'". This submission seems to invite the drawing of some generalised inference that taken together the various admissions manifest his participation in the murder. I have some concern about drawing such a generalised inference, which it appears to involve consciousness of guilt reasoning without seeking to meet the standard of such reasoning.
5. In any event, the argument still relies on the admissions of the applicant being reliable to the extent of indicating his involvement in the murder by indicating that there was some agreement between Watson and the applicant that they would at the least assault the deceased with the applicant present. I have significant doubts about their reliability.
6. To begin with, the fact that he would tell such a lurid and inculpatory version to his parents when it was probably not true, on occasions when he had no apparent cause to lie, suggests that what he says is suspect even when against interest. This applicant is extraordinary in this regard.
7. Another remarkable example is that he told Ms Waldron, Watson's first wife, that he had "actually stabbed" Watson before. When this was queried, he said "I stabbed him in the stomach and somehow I missed all the main arteries". There is no evidence that any such assault occurred. This was explicitly contradicted by Ms Watson's evidence that she was not aware of any such stabbing, despite having lived with Watson for the whole relevant time (going beyond when the applicant left that house). No reason is apparent why the applicant would tell Ms Waldron this remarkable fabrication.
8. There was evidence that the applicant was prone to story telling. His mother gave evidence that since the time the applicant was very young, he used to make up stories, twist the truth and tell lies. As noted above, in a call with his father on 23 August 2019, his father told him that he did not know what the applicant was saying was the truth, and that "you always been full of shit", a point he reiterated when the applicant said the next day that he had cut the throat of the deceased. The father in that call, referring to himself and the applicant's mother, "we don't know whether to believe you or not sometimes". As explained above at [71], the applicant's brother also doubted what he was being told. As regards the admissions about having cut the throat of the deceased, oddly the applicant later denied to his mother that he had said this to the father, even though he had said it to both of them (see above at [70]).
9. On a series of other occasions the applicant said things which appear not to be true and where there was no apparent reason for him to have lied: 1. He told his mother her sister was at the bonfire where the body was burnt. There is no evidence of that and it seems most unlikely (see above at [54]). 2. He told his father he had caught the deceased abusing the Watsons' child, which appears most unlikely (see [62]). 3. He told Ms Watson that he had a New South Wales gun licence when explaining to her how he thought the police managed to contact his family. Detective Wallace gave evidence that the applicant never held a New South Wales gun licence. 4. He said in the first ERISP that he held a security license. He did not. 5. Immediately after speaking to the police by phone on 1 September 2019 he lied to his wife about the nature of the conversation that he had and told yet a different account to Ms Watson (see above at [79]). 6. He indicated to his father in their first recorded phone call that he had "done" this - that is, what he had done to the deceased - to more than one person (see above at [66]). There is no evidence to support this, and it seems unlikely.
10. All these needless lies are suggestive of someone who is either or both a compulsive liar or a fantasist.
11. The Crown also suggested to the jury that the applicant had likely lied about Watson having a 9mm Glock pistol. It is perhaps understandable why the applicant would make this claim to the police. It is somewhat less understandable that he would say it to his father, as he did on 1 September 2019.
12. Another theme of the applicant was that a knife - sometimes described as the murder weapon - was disposed of in the dam on the property. The dam was searched and no knife was found. The Crown put to the jury that the claim that he had put it in the dam was a lie.
13. Watson told SD and the applicant that he was a hitman and he killed people for a living. SD thought that Watson was just big-noting himself to impress them. It seems that the applicant may have believed him as he said it to each of his parents and to Ms Waldron. He told the police the same, and that Watson had been in the Army, and that Watson had killed 56 people. Watson had not been in the army. The Crown said this to the jury: Paul Watson isn't some Mr Big that anyone has an interest in protecting. He's a nobody wannabe who tells lies to big-note himself; that is, if you can believe what [the applicant] says he was told. He was never in the Army. The idea that he'd murdered 56 people and gotten away with it is just ludicrous.
14. There seems a real possibility that the applicant did believe that Watson was some kind of killer for hire, having said this to his parents. That he may have believed this when SD did not, and the Crown ridiculed the claim, suggests that the applicant may have been credulous. That characteristic would be consistent with his tendency to fabulise.
15. In this context, the admissions made by the applicant are not sufficiently reliable in my view to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was some agreement between Watson and the applicant that they would at the least assault the deceased with the applicant present. The clearest and most inculpatory admissions, about having cut the throat of the deceased, are probably not true. That makes this case extraordinary. So, too, does the clear propensity of the applicant to tell lies and fantasies with no apparent reason to do so. In my view one cannot draw out some reliable admission to involvement from all or any of the various versions of events described by the applicant. Clearly there is a real possibility that the applicant was involved in the murder. But that does not suffice.
16. The Crown submitted to this Court that if the applicant's arguments were accepted it would "tend to suggest that an admitted killer might throw doubt on their own liability simply by making an increasing number of varied and inconsistent confessions as to the manner of the killing, so as to escape liability for the crime that had been committed". That submission fails to grapple with the particular facts of this case. The conclusion I have reached does not depend upon the fact that the applicant told so many different, improbable versions of his involvement in the two police interviews. Rather, fundamentally the Crown's case was founded on admissions. It was for the Crown to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the admissions made were sufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In my view they are not.

Conclusion

1. None of the witness evidence points in any material way to a conclusion that the applicant was a party to the murder, as opposed to having been an accessory after the fact. The case against the applicant is founded on admissions, particularly those he made in intercepted phone calls. Those admissions are of suspect reliability.
2. Having reviewed all of the evidence given at trial I have a doubt that the applicant is guilty of murder as charged. The reasons given above illustrate that that doubt is a reasonable one.
3. The question, then, is whether my doubt can be explained away by reference to the natural advantages of the jury. The High Court said the following in Dansie at [17]: The advantage that a trial judge might have had over a court of criminal appeal by reason of having seen and heard the evidence at trial will vary from case to case depending on the form in which the evidence was adduced at the trial and depending on the nature of the issues that arose at the trial. In a case such as the present, where the prosecution case was circumstantial, where the evidence adduced by the prosecution was largely uncontested and for the most part in the form of transcripts of unchallenged testimony, and where the appellant did not give evidence, the advantage must be slight.
4. Although that passage is directed to a trial judge in a judge-alone trial, the points made are equally applicable to a jury. The passage resonates in this case. The case here was circumstantial and much of the evidence was not contested.
5. None of my reasoning turns on doubting witness testimony in a manner inconsistent with the Crown case. The jury had no relevant advantage, thus, in that respect.
6. The jury listened to the telephone intercepts and watched the two police interviews. I have not done so. However, I do not consider that any part of my reasoning depends in any material way on what impression would have been conveyed by what the jury heard and saw in that regard. Consistently with the Crown case, I regard the versions of events given by the applicant in the ERISPs as replete with falsehoods and lies. I do not see how watching the interviews would be likely to alter that conclusion.
7. As regards the phone intercepts, the Crown made the following submission to this Court: [W]ith the benefit of considering all of the evidence of listening to the tone of his voice when he said certain things and he said other things. I mean, one of the things the mother says to him that's interesting is that she's almost sort of accuses him of kind of being dramatic and so forth. And that would be a classic example of where the advantage that the jury had would come in. Because the tone of the voice, for example, when he's talking about making somebody disappear and he's even being quite sort of restrained in the way that he's talking. It would be open for them to say, "Well look at times he gets into this sort of mode where he's bragging."
8. Yet there is no dispute that much of what he said on those calls was probably not true including, critically, his core admissions to his parents of having cut the throat of the deceased. The Crown did not suggest to the jury that that claim should be regarded as bragging and it would be perverse to regard it as such. As to the point about the mother suggesting the applicant was being dramatic, to the extent that has any relevance to my conclusion it relates to the tendency of the applicant to tell stories and lies. I have set out a series of examples of that above. My examples are consistent with how the Crown put the case at trial. And the mother's evidence in cross-examination that the applicant had always been prone to making up stories, twisting the truth and telling lies was not challenged in re-examination. I do not consider that listening to the intercepts gave the jury any significant advantage in assessing their significance to the case.
9. In sum, the admissions made by the applicant - on which the Crown case depends - are not reliable enough to found a solid conclusion that he was involved in the murder in the manner alleged. My view is not capable of being explained away by the natural advantages of the jury. I do not think it was reasonably open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. There is a significant possibility that the applicant is innocent of the offence charged. Given that conclusion, he is entitled to be acquitted of the murder charge.

Orders

1. The orders of the Court should be as follows: 1. Grant leave to appeal and appeal upheld. 2. Quash the appellant's conviction and a judgment of acquittal be entered in its place.
2. FAGAN J: The applicant's appeal ground, that the jury's verdict against him is "unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence", is advanced upon the basis that the Crown case critically depended upon admissions made by the applicant in intercepted phone conversations with family members and associates and in recorded interviews with police. The applicant contends that those admissions were internally inconsistent and contrary to other evidence, to such an extent that the jury could not, on the basis of the admissions, reasonably have found the charge of murder proved to the criminal standard.

The basis of criminal liability alleged against the applicant

1. Assessment of this ground must commence with consideration of how the Crown formulated its case and what the jury had to be satisfied of in order to return their verdict. In opening, the prosecutor put the Crown case in the following terms: Paul Watson elicited the aid of his friend the accused to help him kill William Chaplin and [the accused] did help him willingly. The opening included the following acknowledgement: The Crown does not know precisely when or how William Chaplin was murdered.
2. Thus, the basis of criminal liability was said to be a joint criminal enterprise of Paul Watson (to whom I will refer as "Watson") and the applicant to kill the deceased, in the execution of which the accused participated so that the lethal acts, whatever they may have been and whether perpetrated by Watson or by the applicant, were attributable to the applicant. In summing up the case was left to the jury in those terms and on the alternative bases of extended joint criminal enterprise and aiding and abetting at the scene of the crime as a principal in the second degree. Manslaughter was left on the basis of either joint criminal enterprise or extended joint criminal enterprise to commit an unlawful and dangerous act.

What the jury could draw from the applicant's admissions

1. The Crown did not adduce evidence from which the jury could find beyond reasonable doubt that any particular words were spoken between Watson and the applicant to constitute an agreement that William Chaplin be killed. For a verdict of guilty to be returned it was not necessary that the jury should have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that particular words were spoken. Nor did they have to be satisfied to the criminal standard as to any particular acts of the applicant that would have implicitly signified to Watson his agreement in the enterprise of murder, or any particular acts that constituted his participation in carrying out the enterprise. It was sufficient if the jury found that the elements of joint enterprise liability for the murder were proved at a general level; that is, that the applicant and Watson reached an agreement or understanding, by some means spoken or unspoken, that together they would kill William Chaplin and that while their agreement or understanding remained on foot they carried out between them, pursuant to and in accordance with the agreement, such acts as were necessary to kill him. The jury did not have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the means by which death was caused or who, of the applicant and Watson, performed the causative acts. It was open to the jury to find that those elements of liability, expressed in their general terms, had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the admissions of the applicant, understood by the jury at their general or fundamental level of meaning.
2. To illustrate the point, with respect to the element of the applicant's participation in executing the joint enterprise, it was not necessary that the jury should find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had cut the deceased's throat, on the basis that they would accept as reliable his admissions to that effect to his mother and father. It was not necessary that they should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, alternatively or additionally, that the applicant applied a length of fishing line around the deceased's neck, as he told the police he may have done; or that he held the deceased from behind while Watson stabbed him in the chest, as he also told the police. It was open to the jury to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the applicant provided material assistance to Watson in furtherance of a joint enterprise of killing William Chaplin if they found that the applicant had reliably admitted, in general terms, that he took part with Watson in the commission of the murder, albeit that they must have found his varying claims as to precisely what he did inconsistent with and contradictory of each other and therefore unreliable as to specifics.
3. The applicant argued in this Court that his admissions during the intercepted phone conversations and, more particularly, his admissions during the police interviews, contained so many inconsistencies and contradictions with respect to particularisation of his acts and the acts of Watson that it was not open to the jury to have relied upon those admissions as proof beyond reasonable doubt of anything. However, there was an essential consistent vein of admissions against interest in a number of the applicant's statements on the phone and in his second police interview to the effect that he did assist Watson in some manner to kill William Chaplin pursuant to an agreement between them that they would do so in concert. The question is whether it was reasonably open to the jury to have drawn that vein of admissions from the applicant's phone calls and from his second police interview and to rely upon it as a fundamental acknowledgement that proved the Crown case against him, notwithstanding that the applicant also asserted particulars of his involvement in terms that were so variable and mutually inconsistent that they could not be relied upon. In my view it was reasonably open to the jury to find the applicant guilty.
4. It is necessary to consider the telephone intercept admissions in detail and then the applicant's admissions during his police interviews. It was open to the jury to evaluate those two bodies of evidence, respectively, according to their differing circumstances and qualities. The admissions on the phone of having participated with Watson in the murder were repeated in multiple conversations, over three weeks, with the applicant's mother, father and brother. His conversations with Samone Watson during the same period included implicit admissions of participation. There were passages in the phone conversations that the jury could reasonably have construed as the applicant formulating falsehoods that he would propound to police in order to deny or diminish his responsibility for William Chaplin's death.
5. It was open to the jury to find that under the subsequent police questioning the applicant's plan to mislead the detectives unravelled almost immediately. The jury could reasonably have taken the view that in the police interviews the progressive changes in the applicant's account of his knowledge or lack of knowledge of William Chaplin's death did not give rise to any doubt that he had participated in the joint enterprise but merely amounted to inept casting about for a story that would deny or minimise his own part. Before turning to the detail of the phone intercepts and police interviews it is useful to note, first, the issues identified to the jury by defence counsel and, secondly, some of the other evidence in the trial.

Issues presented by defence counsel to the jury

1. Towards the end of the Crown opening the prosecutor said he anticipated that the jury may be told that the applicant "was forced by Paul Watson to participate in the murder of William Chaplin". When defence counsel opened, to identify what issues would arise in the trial, he commenced by responding to the Crown in the following terms: [One] of the last things [Crown counsel] said is that you may be told that [the accused] was forced, forced to help kill William Chaplin. Well, he wasn't. You are not going to be told that. The only thing that's happened to this young man is that he was there at the time. He was under the power, the spell, of this diabolical man Paul Watson. The part highlighted in bold was later retracted in defence counsel's final address, considered below.
2. Defence counsel's brief opening also included the following: He [the applicant] was there when William Chaplin was killed, a 16 year old watching the brutal murder by 39-year-old man of a 25-year-old who was called "too tall" [a reference to William Chaplin's nickname]. He's not on trial for being an accessory after the fact. He's on trial for murder, and he didn't murder Mr Chaplin. He didn't help attack or kill Mr Chaplin. He had no intention. He wasn't involved in some plan with Watson to go out and attack him, let alone to go and kill him. Consider how a 16 year old might react to being there when another man is brutally stabbed to death by this demonic man who's a sexual offender of children, who has actually - and there'll be evidence about this, who has actually said that he's killed other people and many of them, in the Army and out of the Army, he's an assassin. He has got a history of violence towards other people. He [the applicant] didn't kill this poor man, he didn't assist in killing him, knowing what was going to happen, he wasn't involved in an assault that went wrong. He was just told to go out by the 39 year old, out to the [round] yard and wait for him and then - and I anticipate you will hear Mr Watson brings Chaplin out. They ask him [the applicant] where he is, he says "I'm up here because it's very dark" and when he jumps down Mr Watson pushes Mr Chaplin into him and they both fall to the ground. [The accused] gets up and Watson jumps on him [ie William Chaplin], straddles him and stabs him to death. How do you think the 16 year old would react in those circumstances?
3. Some parts of the above extracts from the defence opening appear to have been delivered on the assumption that the applicant would be called. However, he was not called. In final address defence counsel said this: I should recap on my opening where I said, "You have just heard the opening address from the learned Crown who has provided an outline of what the Crown case is going to be and one of the last things he said is that you may be told that [the accused] was forced, forced to help kill William Chaplin." Now, what I say thereafter, ["Well he wasn't …"] and so forth is no longer in this trial because they [scil "I"] didn't call him. So in relation to this aspect about what happened at the actual time, you have to put that out of your minds because he wasn't called and I've sought to explain the reason why he wasn't called and I hope to elaborate on that in due course.
4. The extent to which defence counsel intended partly to retract his opening is not clear. He repeated some of the later parts of it during his final address. Counsel made the following general statement about any positive conclusions that he may have suggested in opening, that might depend upon the applicant's statements in the intercepted phone calls and in the police interviews: I have to rely upon, as does the Crown, the evidence in the trial because he [the applicant] hasn't been called. So if we all accept, as the evidence suggests that we should, that everything that's said in those telephone intercepts and everything that's said in those interviews is unreliable, well, then there's no reliable evidence to base any findings of guilt in relation to the directions that his Honour will give you regarding the elements. So, in a sense, you have to remove positive things that I've said and what my submission will be, you have to remove or you should remove, logically, the positive things the Crown has sought to deduce from those interviews.
5. Defence counsel addressed the jury in closing on the basis that the jury would find that the applicant had been present when William Chaplin was killed. First, counsel submitted that lies told by his client did not indicate a consciousness of guilt with respect to the crime of murder. The following submission was made: Now in the circumstances it could've been a conscious of guilt if that's the basis of which he's telling lies other than the fact that he's a mess you might think and I'll come to that in due course. He's telling lies because he was there at the time even if he didn't do anything how would the 16 year-old feel about that.
6. More clearly, counsel later referred to evidence that while the applicant resided with the Watsons he had witnessed Watson beating his wife, Samone, and on another occasion beating a teenager named SD. He referred to an occasion when Watson threatened SD with a knife to his throat. Counsel said this: These are horrific incidents for a young [person] to be exposed to a juvenile and indeed it would appear open that he was exposed to the actual murder of this man by Paul Watson. A murder it would seem if we look at what available objective evidence we do have and we do have the [Dr Donlan, forensic anthropologist] evidence regards to consistency of a stab in the right chest. That's something that he's had to witness.
7. As described in detail below, the applicant accepted throughout the trial that Watson had murdered William Chaplin. In defence counsel's closing address he said this: And I note that in his address yesterday, Mr Crown said, quite fairly and clearly, "There is no doubt that Paul Watson was the orchestrator of the death of William Chapman". There is no dispute about that.
8. The applicant thus accepted at trial and before this Court that it was open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was present in the round yard when, by means not clearly established, Watson killed William Chaplin. From there it was but a short further step for the jury to find, again beyond reasonable doubt, that there was a common theme in the applicant's admissions, on the phone and in the second police interview in general terms that he had been present in the round yard ready and willing to assist and that he had played some part, not satisfactorily specified in the admissions, in furtherance of the object of killing William Chaplin. It was open to the jury to infer from the fact of his admitted presence, willingness and unspecified assistance that the applicant acted in accordance with an understanding reached with Watson, either shortly before or at the scene, that between them they should bring about William Chaplin's death.

Background to the homicide

1. Background to the killing of William Chaplin was provided through the evidence of Ms Jean Waldron, Ms Samone Watson (to whom I will refer as "Samone", for brevity), Mrs Sharryn Wallace (Samone's mother) and Mrs LT (the applicant's mother). In the following paragraphs I refer to some of the facts of which those witnesses gave evidence, additional to the non-contentious facts that have been summarised by Kirk JA.
2. From about the mid-1990s until 2001 Watson was living with his then wife, Ms Jean Waldron, in Wodonga. In early 2001 they separated and Watson moved to live as a boarder with Mr and Mrs Wallace and their children, including Samone, in the Albury-Wodonga area. Watson was then aged 32. After about a month Mrs Wallace found Watson's presence intrusive and asked him to leave. Eventually he did move away, in response to prolonged pressure from Mrs Wallace. He told her that he was going to marry Samone when she was 18. She was then 14. Samone, who was infatuated with Watson, moved out with him. From then on they lived in an intimate relationship.
3. Some time later, before 2005, Watson and Samone moved to 131 Main Street, Gerogery, a town situated 30 km north of Albury on the Olympic Highway. Number 131 was at the edge of the town, the last of a line of freestanding houses on the south-east side of Main Street. There was a shed in the back yard of the property and over the back fence there was a line of trees with a cleared paddock beyond. The paddock was of 23 acres. It was used by Watson and Samone for keeping horses, at times up to 10 of them. While living at this property in 2005 Samone turned 18 and she then married Watson.
4. Mrs LT and the applicant moved to Gerogery in 2005 when the applicant was about 12 years old. They occupied a house on Main Street about 400 m from No 131. The applicant's parents were separated and his father, ST, lived at Culcairn, a larger town situated 19 km further north on the Olympic Highway. The applicant attended high school at Culcairn. Mrs LT's sister, Belinda, also lived in Gerogery. She was married to a man named Bill Lekic. They lived with their son, Jack, in the house next door to the Watsons.
5. Not long after moving to Gerogery the applicant and Mrs LT became acquainted with Watson and Samone. The applicant commenced to spend out-of-school hours at the Watsons' house, helping to look after their horses. He was there nearly every afternoon and evening and sometimes stayed overnight. Watson was about 23 years older than the applicant. He was approximately 35 years old when the two first met in 2005. The applicant's regular attendance at the Watsons' house continued until the applicant and his mother moved to Townsville in 2007.
6. Samone gave birth to a daughter, CW, in April 2008. Following this, Watson became violently abusive towards her. He regularly threatened to kill Samone. She was afraid of him and sometimes moved out of the home to stay with his mother and stepfather in Wodonga for a few days at a time.
7. In late 2009 or early 2010 the applicant, then aged 16, left his mother in Townsville and moved back to New South Wales to reside with his father at Culcairn. The applicant resumed visiting the Watson home. In about late 2009 he commenced to live at No 131, occupying one of the three bedrooms in the house. To Samone's observation, Watson and the applicant were very good friends, spending a lot of time in each other's company and smoking marijuana together. Samone said that Watson engaged in physical violence against her in the presence of the applicant on four or five occasions while the applicant was living with them.
8. Samone was friendly with Christine Chaplin. Christine brought her brother, William Chaplin, to the Watson home and introduced him. He became friendly with Watson and subsequently visited from time to time. About one month after the applicant commenced to occupy one of the bedrooms in the house, William Chaplin also moved in and slept on a couch in the lounge room. William Chaplin was 25 years old. Samone described the relationship between Watson and William Chaplin as "very good friends".
9. In the paddock behind the Watsons' house there were a large number of discarded motor tyres arranged in a circle and stacked six high on top of each other to form a fence, enclosing what was known as "the round yard". This yard was about 55 m from the back fence of the property. It was about 6 m in diameter, with a break in the circle of tyres to provide an entrance. It was used for exercising and training horses. There was no dispute at trial that during one evening between 30 March 2010 and 31 May 2010 Watson killed William Chaplin in the round yard and that the next day he, with the assistance of the applicant, placed the body in a shallow grave that was dug beneath a segment of the circle of tyres. There was no dispute that Watson, with the assistance of Samone and the applicant, placed wood fuel on top of the body and that Watson started a fire to consume William Chaplin's remains. The circumstances of the killing were in issue and the evidence of that will be considered further below.
10. The applicant commenced a relationship with Ms MP in 2010 while he was living in the Culcairn/Gerogery area. The two of them moved to Townsville after William Chaplin had been killed. LT said that the move took place in mid to late 2010. The applicant and Ms MP remained in the Townsville area for a least 18 months to LT's recollection. By 2017 they had moved to Cobram, about 160 km west of Albury, down the Murray River on the Victorian side. Samone had invited the applicant to go there to take up a job. Samone had separated from Watson by 2017. The applicant and MP returned from Cobram to Townsville in early 2019. They were still living in Townsville in August 2019 when Albury detectives commenced to make enquiries amongst the applicant's family and associates regarding the disappearance of William Chaplin.
11. Kirk JA has summarised the evidence of Sacha Priest. Mr Priest's report that Watson had admitted having committed a murder sparked the investigation that led police to Samone and then to the applicant

Samone Watson's evidence

1. Samone was first questioned by the detectives on 30 July 2019. She made a statement that day and she subsequently took part in a very long recorded interview on 14 August 2019 and a shorter one on 18 September 2019. Her evidence at trial about the circumstances of William Chaplin's death was substantially in accordance with what she had told police. She said that in the early months of 2010 the applicant and William Chaplin, whom she knew as Too Tall, were both living at the Gerogery house with herself and Watson and their daughter, CW, who turned two years old in April that year. She said that during the afternoon of a day following CW's birthday she had an argument with Watson and left the home to stay with his mother in Wodonga for the night. She left late in the afternoon or during the early evening.
2. Next morning at 11:30 am Samone phoned Watson to ask if she could return. He said that she should give him an hour to clean up. She returned at 12:30 pm. When she arrived at the house Watson and the applicant were there. She said the demeanour of each of them was normal and that "there was joking about it's a lovely day for sunbaking and that sort of thing and laying under the sun". In cross-examination she clarified that it was Watson who spoke in those terms. She confirmed an answer that she had given to police in her interview of 14 August 2019 to this effect: Paul was making a joke about Too Tall, how it's such a lovely day and [warm] enough he, he'd be having a lovely sunbake.
3. As summarised by Kirk JA, Samone said that on that afternoon she was taken by Watson out to the round yard, with the applicant also present, and that she was there shown the dead body of William Chaplin. She said that after 7:00 pm that evening Watson directed her and the applicant to go back out to the paddock. The body had, in the meantime, been removed to a location about 20 m beyond the round yard to a shallow grave under some trees, which was covered with a piece of sheet metal. Watson and/or the applicant removed the cover and they carried William Chaplin's body back to the round yard. Samone observed that a shallow trench had been dug in the yard since she had been there during the afternoon. Watson and the applicant placed the body in this trench and placed wood on top of it, including some old railway sleepers. Samone assisted to place more wood. Watson poured on petrol and ignited it. The fire burned for two or three days.
4. Samone never went back to the round yard. She said Watson told her not long after these events that he had found William Chaplin sexually interfering with their daughter, CW, and had killed him on that account. The Crown did not advance that as a truthful motive but suggested to the jury it was more likely William Chaplin had caught Watson sexually touching the child and that he had been murdered to prevent him telling Samone or police. Samone said that the applicant had never said anything to her about killing William Chaplin and nor had Watson ever said anything about the applicant having been involved.
5. Samone Watson's evidence provided context that was relevant to assessing the probative value of the applicant's admissions in the intercepted phone calls and in his two interviews with police. Her evidence otherwise provided no proof, either circumstantial or direct, that the applicant had joined with Watson upon an enterprise to kill William Chaplin or that he had participated in carrying out that enterprise. The Crown case to that effect depended entirely upon the applicant's admissions and upon such of his false statements as the jury might find were lies that evinced a consciousness of guilt.

Thursday 15 August 2019

1. Detective Sergeant Wallace obtained Samone's account of events in the interview he conducted on 14 August 2019. Having arranged for phone calls to and from the applicant's mobile service to be intercepted, he phoned the applicant's mother, Mrs LT. He told her that he was investigating the disappearance of William Chaplin, who had not been seen since about 2010 and who used to stay at the home of Watson and Samone. The detective said that homicide was suspected and that the applicant was implicated. Mrs LT phoned the applicant's partner, MP, and informed her about the call. Then she phoned the applicant, at 21:29 (AB153). The applicant told his mother that he did not know who Will Chaplin was.
2. MP then called the applicant at 21:31 and the following exchange took place (AB156): MP Did you kill someone two years ago? Applicant No MP Don't lie to me. Applicant Oi I'll talk to you about it when we get home, when I get home. … Applicant … I never met a Will. MP Fuckin' bullshit. Applicant No I never did
3. Three minutes later, at 21:34, Mrs LT called the applicant again. She said that she had told the detective that Samone was in Cobram, to which the applicant said, "Oh fuckin' idiot". The conversation continued as follows (AB159): Mother What's going on? Applicant He went missing. Mother I know, that's what the copper told me. … Somewhere along the line, you've been implicated, your name's come up. … Applicant We found him one night touching [CW], all right? … [CW] was about two years old at the time, so I took him out to the round yard and cut his throat and then we burnt the body. … In the paddock. (Pause) There's no, there's no trace evidence of anything. Mother What about bones and shit. Applicant No it was all disintegrated. Funnily enough, your sister came to the bonfire. (Pause) Mother Well I'm, I'm sticking to the story saying that you were, you were up here with me. Applicant Yeah, stick to the story. … Applicant Now, now, now you know what I was involved in. (Pause) Okay? Mother Fuck. … Applicant I promise I'll tell you everything. Mother Don't fuckin' lie to me. Applicant I'm not, that's, that's the bad part. … … Mother All I've asked you is to be honest with me. Applicant I will when I see you face-to-face please. … Applicant But I can't promise you you're going to enjoy what you hear.
4. Defence counsel submitted to the jury that Samone's evidence established that William Chaplin's throat had not been cut. In his closing address the prosecutor said this: While this version of cutting his throat is possible, it's unlikely, the Crown says, due to what Samone Watson told the police about the lack of any obvious injury or blood around William Chaplin's neck.
5. It was open to the jury to accept as reliable the applicant's admission to his mother (and later to his father and to police) that he had participated in the attack on William Chaplin with a knife to his throat. From a number of the applicant's admissions combined with Samone's evidence, it appeared that the attack took place during the evening prior to the afternoon on which Samone saw the body in the round yard. By the time of her viewing the body, it had lain in the open air on bare ground for between 12 and 18 hours. Samone expressed confidence that if there was a neck wound she would have seen it but it was open to the jury to conclude that that was not necessarily so. Samone did not claim to have inspected the corpse closely. Notwithstanding the applicant's description of his act, any wound he inflicted may not have been fatal and may not have, literally, cut through the deceased's throat. Watson took part in the attack and it may have been his contribution that caused death. Any knife damage done by the applicant may not have been significant or conspicuous. The jury were not bound to regard Samone's evidence as a definitive contradiction of the applicant's admission and they may have found the admission more compelling than Samone's observations. Even if the jury were left with a doubt about the reliability the applicant's specific claimed contribution to the attack, that he "cut his throat", it was open to them to rely upon what he told his mother in this conversation as an admission of active participation in the killing.

Friday 16 August 2019

1. The next day, 16 August 2019, at 16:52 the applicant received a call from Samone. This was a pretext call that DS Wallace had asked Samone to make. She was cooperating with police. Extracts of the conversation are as follows (AB176): Applicant … [Mum] got a crazy phone call yesterday. Um, Albury Wodonga detectives. Stating that um, a certain someone um, went missing in 2010. Have you heard anything? Samone I have been approached, yes. … Applicant What are, what are they askin'? Samone I guess you could probably guess what they are after? Applicant Oh yeah. …. Samone I, I, look I honestly don't know how or where it's leaked from but yeah, it's leaked anyway. Applicant Well there is no - no, well there's nothing. … They can't find anything. … Applicant So it all happens when a certain little girl is what - two? Samone Yeah, yep.
2. In a conversation with his mother about four hours later, at 20:58 on 16 August 2018, the applicant purported to be speculating whether it was really the police who were inquiring after him, or someone else, given that the detectives had not contacted him directly. The following are extracts from this phone call (AB199 at 209-211): Applicant I understand you want to know and you have questions but you ain't goin' to like what you know. [MP] hates it. … Applicant [If] he is who he says he is he's in, they are investigating. They are not looking. They know where I am, obviously. … Applicant But there is no evidence. There's no body. There's no murder weapon. There's nothing. As far as I, I can remember back 10 years ago mum, as far as I remember um, I met him briefly for a, a time. He was sleeping in a, in a, a van and last time I heard that he went to um, Western Australia. All right? …
3. A number of passages in the applicant's phone conversations with his parents had features similar to the above, namely, the applicant admitting or implying his participation in the murder but indicating the line of ignorance or exculpation that he would take with police if asked. His conversations with Samone included similar features, as illustrated in the conversation of 18 August 2019 to which I will now turn. It was open to the jury to find that this pattern of the applicant's conversations was inconsistent with him merely fantasising about his involvement. A person who had not been involved in the murder but imagined his involvement and wanted others to believe it would not be inventing and foreshadowing exculpatory stories.

Sunday 18 August 2019

1. On 18 August 2019, in a call that commenced at 11:24, the applicant told Samone that he would be saying "the last time I seen him was, um, he was leaving for Western Australia or something. … A couple of weeks before I left. Yeah, so I don't know, I don't know where he is." The conversation continued as follows (AB242 at 247-248): Applicant So, she [the applicant's mother] knows, um, she knows now. Samone She knows? Applicant She knows. … I had no choice. … But she's good.
2. Samone had been requested by DS Wallace to ask the applicant how the murder was actually committed. Accordingly, she initiated the following exchange (AB248-250): Samone So who … actually did it? Applicant He did. Samone He did? Applicant Yeah. Samone Yeah. How did he do it? Applicant I don't know. I came inside. … I don't know if, I don't even know, yeah, I actually don't know. … Samone Why did he involve you? Applicant I don't know. I think he was going to do me. … He wanted me to do you. … That's why I, that's why I fucked off. That's why I left. Samone Didn't he tell you to go? Applicant No. I told him, I told him I was going and he wanted me to stay. … He tried … getting rid of Maddie to make me stay and everything. Samone Yeah. Well he told me that he told you to leave and never come back. Applicant No.
3. It was open to the jury to construe another part of this conversation as an attempt by the applicant to indicate to Samone that, if asked by police, he would pretend not to have been present at the killing of William Chaplin (AB252): Applicant I don't even know if it happened. I don't know. I honestly don't know if it actually happened or he took off. Samone You do know what happened because you were there with us that following day. Applicant Yeah, but I don't know what happened. Do you? Samone No, I … Applicant Catch my drift? Samone Hey? Applicant Catch my drift? Samone Yeah. Yeah. Applicant Yeah. I'm going with it.
4. Next, the applicant spoke to Samone about his intention to cast blame upon Watson. He expressed a belief that no evidence could be found and a lack of concern regarding the possibility of retribution from Watson after his release from prison (AB260-263): Applicant But, we'll see where this goes and, if worst comes to worst, if you're happy to do it I'm blowing it back on him. … Because to be honest, Samone, even if we come clean now we can still say, "He, he was threatening us. He held us hostage. If we ever spoke he would kill us and we knew he would". … And I, I was 15. … So, I was scared for my life and you were scared for yours. Applicant All I remember - and so do you. All I remember is it was happening in the round yard. … but there's nothing. There's no evidence. There's nothing left behind. … Applicant It was torched. Everything was. Yeah. And then all I remember … Everything. The ashes are scattered around that paddock. They'd be gone by now. Long gone. So, but if worst, yeah, like I said, if worst comes to worst I'm blowing it back on him. … if one day he gets out or fuckin' finds a way to get out I'll do him. Samone Yeah. Yeah. Applicant Yeah. I'm going with it.

Thursday 22 August 2019

1. On 22 August 2018 Mr Bill Lecki, the applicant's uncle who lived in Gerogery next door to No 131 Main Street, phoned the applicant at 15:55 and told him that the police had come to his place making enquiries about the applicant, being "a young bloke" who "used to visit the Watsons' house" (AB328). Mr Lecki said he understood from police that Too Tall had been missing for 10 years and the last time anyone knew his whereabouts he was at the Watsons' house. The applicant told Mr Lecki, "He went to Western Australia or some shit" (AB331). He said that Watson had told him of William Chaplin's departure for the West. Mr Lecki advised the applicant to ring the police and the applicant said he would do so.
2. The applicant phoned DS Wallace a few minutes later (AB336). He referred to the police having made contact with his family members and said "I don't know what's going on". The detective explained that he was investigating a missing person named William Chaplin, who had not been seen since about 2010, and that the applicant was "a person of interest". He was warned that he was not obliged to say anything. The applicant said that he did not know where he was in 2010, that he was "going between Queensland and New South Wales". He said that the name William Chaplin "does ring a bell, but I can't remember where I knew him from"; that he knew "a shit load of Williams, but I can't remember last names". When the detective supplied the nickname Too Tall the applicant said he knew the person but did not know his real name, that he "didn't really meet him for very long", that he was very young at the time, 13 or 14, and that it would have been in Albury. The applicant acknowledged that he knew Watson and that he had lived with him for about six months prior to moving to Queensland with his partner, which the applicant said was "going on ten years, eleven years now". The officer asked for the phone number of the applicant's father. The applicant said he did not have it.
3. Less than an hour later on 22 August 2019 the applicant's father, Mr ST, called him (AB357). In response to the applicant's enquiry, ST said he had not been contacted by the police. The conversation included the following (AB360-362): Applicant … some cunt went missing, a ten year ago … nine year ago. Gerogery. Father Were you in Gerogery when this cunt went missing? Applicant No I was in Queensland I think. Father You think? (Laughs) … Father Did this cunt deserve to go missing? Applicant I don't know if he went missing dad, I couldn't tell you. Father Oh righto, oh well … if he deserved to go missing, well you know some people go missing … 'cause they deserve to go missing. Applicant He might of, ah, yeah. He might … Well he might, he might have touched a kid, I don't know. … Father … Well that's kind of lights the story a bit. So it boils back, all back to that, back …? Applicant No boils, boils back to me. Father To you, why were you? Applicant Oh, I was around, somewhere ... Father If you were around, you'd know about it. Applicant I don't know. I don't know. Father You don't? Ah well, well if that's what you know if that's what you know, as long as you're not … as long as you don't do shit. Applicant Well I did, kind of. ... Well he went missing, but I don't know where went.
4. It was open to the jury to conclude that in this part of the conversation the applicant's father used the expression "go missing" in the sense of a person being liquidated or killed and that the applicant understood what was said in that sense. It was open to the jury to understand that this was not merely a conversation about disposal of a body, in relation to which the question of what the person "deserved" would make no sense.
5. As this phone conversation progressed it became apparent that Mr ST thought that the person who was referred to as having gone missing was Watson. When the applicant said the missing person was "someone else" the conversation continued as follows (AB365-362): Father Okay. Um, why did they go missing? Applicant Ah may have touched the wrong little girl. … And was caught, was caught in the act. … Father … was there any physical evidence? Applicant No there's no physical evidence of absolutely anything. Father So it's hearsay. Applicant I seen it with my own eyes, but. Father … So you like witnessed? Applicant Mm, yeah I witnessed the lot. Applicant And now I'm starting to fuckin' worry. Applicant But I don't know anything.
6. The jury were entitled to understand the applicant's admission of having seen "the lot" with "my own eyes" as an acknowledgement that he was present when the deceased person went "missing", adopting his father's euphemism for a killing. The last sentence spoken by the applicant in the above extract could reasonably have been understood by the jury as the applicant signalling to his father that he proposed to deny all knowledge of the matter.
7. The applicant then complained to his father that Mr Lecki had destroyed his story by telling police that he "was down there at the time" but the applicant said "I'll come up with a new one" (AB366). The following exchange then took place (AB367-370): Father You didn't, you didn't make person disappear did you? Applicant Um, no comment at this point in time. Father … yeah well if you, if you did help, was there, was there more involved in making person disappear? Applicant Yeah. Father Oh there was a few people. Applicant There was one. Father One other? Applicant Yeah. Father Right, you and someone else made this person disappear.? Applicant Yeah. Applicant Correct. Applicant There's no evidence, there's nothing. … Father Your mum knows … about it all? Applicant Yeah I told her last night.
8. It was open to the jury to understand that the applicant's father again used the expression "make a person disappear" as a euphemism for homicide and that the applicant would have so understood that usage. The jury could have been satisfied that this was not merely a discussion about disposing of a body, especially when the above extract is taken in context of the whole conversation that included, at an earlier point, the father's enquiry "Did this cunt deserve to go missing?" Without any specification by the applicant of what particular acts he carried out, his admission that he "and someone else made this person disappear" could be regarded by the jury as a clear and reliable acknowledgement that he participated with a co-offender in carrying out a joint enterprise to kill the person whose disappearance was the subject of the police inquiry.
9. Towards the end of the conversation the applicant spoke of fleeing "if it goes south" and referred to contingency arrangements that he claimed to be making for this. He also is said the following (AB381 and 385): Applicant In the end Dad, in the end dad ... if it goes south, all right? It's a big if there is no hard evidence at, of anything. Everything was destroyed a long time ago. Guaranteed … … Applicant We can make a sheep disappear in a fire. You can make other things disappear in a fire. … Father … well you've just got to work this out … Applicant You're going to, no you're going to find out some shit that you probably won't like.
10. About three quarters of an hour after concluding this call with his father, the applicant spoke with his mother (ABS1-6). She said she had missed a call from his father and the applicant responded as follows: Applicant You sure will get a phone call. Can you fill him in? … I told him when I called over the phone, can you fill him in? I don't know what my phones got. Mother As in what? Applicant Well, he knows. … He put the pieces together. … Applicant … I don't know if my phone's hot or not. I'll um, can you explain it a bit more to dad? Applicant … just fill him in a bit please and hey, he knows he's not stupid. Mother Yeah, but what does he know? Applicant I don't know. I, I let him know a little bit he doesn't know a lot. All right? He's on the same page, he's not, he doesn't know shit anyhow and yeah. …
11. The jury would have been entitled to understand the applicant's statement that his father "put the pieces together" as a reference to father's question of him, "Right, you and someone else made this person disappear?" The above extract of the conversation with the applicant's mother could be understood by the jury as an acknowledgement that he had already told her that he had taken part in killing the missing person and that his father had come to that realisation from the applicant's oblique statements to him.

Friday 23 August 2019

1. On 23 August 2019 at 18:51 the applicant phoned his father and the conversation included the following (ABS13-18): Father Well, yeah, we're going to have to sort this out. I don't know what you're telling the truth, cause you fucking always been full of shit, you know? Applicant No, this, this is totally different, Dad. … … Applicant Yeah. I don't plan on telling you everything. Applicant ... I can't tell you everything you know that right? Father Well you can tell me most, ninety per cent of it. Applicant I can tell you fifty per cent of it. Father Righto then I work it out for myself. Applicant Well if you can piece together you can piece it together but I can't, Dad. … Applicant It's just going to, yeah, it's going to, yeah, change everyone's view of me. I know that but not much I can do about that now. Father But at the end of the day like if you done what you did to this person who did what he did … Applicant People. Father … no one cares. Applicant People, Dad.

Saturday 24 August 2019

1. Nearly 24 hours later, at 18:10 on 24 August 2019, the applicant's father called him back and their conversation included the following (ABS48 at 53-54): Applicant What you want to know? Dad. Father I want to know your involvement in this shit. Applicant I am involved in it. Father Right. How deep? Applicant The whole thing. Father Right. Did you take him out? Applicant I did. Father How? Applicant I cut his throat. Father Yeah, righto. You're full of shit. Applicant No, I'm not. I cut his throat and the ... Father Well, you (unintelligible) Applicant Hang on. They are going to dig up the paddock. … Yes, yes. That's where he was burnt. …
2. This was followed by a passage in which the applicant said "I have no idea what they're after" and "I don't know what they're looking for and I don't know anything", apparently indicating the line that he would take in response to police enquiries. The conversation continued: Father Who held him while you're cutting? Applicant Never mind. Father Well, I can't help you if I don't know what went down. … I think I better get to Townsville and we'll, we'll go to the pub and have a chat face to face, hey? … Applicant … The less you know the less you can fuck up. … Applicant Stop asking me. Don't keep ringing and asking me everything, all right?
3. It was open to the jury to find that in both of these conversations with his father, on 23 and 24 August 2019, the applicant was reticent to speak about the specifics of his participation in the killing of William Chaplin. However, he acknowledged that he was involved in "the whole thing" and that he did "take him out". The jury were not bound to feel a reasonable doubt about the reliability of that admission even if they thought his claim to have performed a specific act - "I cut his throat" - was an exaggeration or a mistaken belief about how effective his use of a knife may have been, or otherwise doubtful. The evaluation of that particular of the claim was subject to the considerations referred to at [169] above. It was open to the jury to conclude that the applicant's reluctance to answer his father's requests for further detail indicated that his admissions were genuine. The jury could have concluded that the reason he was trying to limit the amount of specific information circulating amongst his family members was that their knowledge could bring him undone in the police investigation. A number of the applicant's phone conversations showed that he was counting on a belief that nothing could be proved against him because William Chaplin's remains had been thoroughly destroyed.
4. The applicant's father encouraged him to "come clean" with the police and to attribute blame to Watson (ABS59-68): Applicant All right. Now you understand … why all these years I got the fuck out of town and I got the fuck out of Gerogery and never looked back. … Father Well, mate, you can't run. You can't hide. If this is what went down (unintelligible) … it can go on for sixty years, they'll be still - it's on your head. … Applicant I've always, it's always been on my head, dad. … Father … Well, you got to come clean. Applicant I'm not coming clean … and you're going to shut the fuck up. … Father … throw it onto him. Throw it onto that other cunt. Applicant That's what we're doing, dad … … Father But you got to come clean with us so we can help you. Applicant I can't come clean all the way, dad. I can't (unintelligible) Father I know. Well you just told me something that just, you admitted to something just then to me.
5. The above extract was followed by the applicant saying that he hadn't admitted to anything and telling his father to "shut up". It was open to the jury to interpret that further passage as an attempt by the applicant to signal to his father that he should pretend the applicant had made no admissions to him.
6. The jury could reasonably have understood the applicant's statement, "That's what we're doing, dad" as a reference to his discussion with Samone on 18 August 2019 to the effect that they would cooperate in casting blame upon Watson for William Chaplin's death: see [176] above. If the applicant had not been involved in the killing of William Chapman all he needed to do was to tell the police that truth. There would be no reason why he could not "come clean all the way" with his parents. The jury could reasonably have regarded these aspects of the conversation as reliable acknowledgements that the applicant had participated in the killing.
7. Towards the end of the conversation the applicant's father asked him why he didn't say something at the time, "when all this went down". He asked whether the applicant was scared. The applicant said, "Oh, I can't explain right now".

Monday 26 August 2019

1. In three phone calls on the morning of 26 August 2019 the applicant's mother urged him to speak to police and to tell the truth (ABS80, 83 and 93). Mr Bill Lecki, who still lived in Gerogery, was aware that police had by this time commenced an examination of the paddock behind 131 Main Street and he so informed the applicant's father, through whom that information was passed on to the applicant's mother and himself.
2. Commencing at 15:15 on 26 August 2019 the applicant took a phone call from his brother HT who had evidently heard from his mother and father that the applicant had told them he had been involved in the death of William Chaplin. HT said that he and his mother thought the applicant was lying. The applicant responded as follows (ABS102): Applicant But why the fuck would I be making it up now? Brother Because the detectives are looking for you, so you're big noting about it, saying "Oh, yeah …". … Applicant Look they're trying to pin something, they're trying to pin a ten year old missing person named William on Paul to give him more time [in prison]. Applicant They're not after me specifically right now, but if Paul fuckin' turns the tables and they pin him for that. If Paul turns the table, he can tell exactly where to find everything that they need to fuck me, the murder weapon … like the murder weapon is in the dam. What happens if they drag that dam? Brother Well you shouldn't be talking on the phone [ZT], because you can lose (unintelligible) … Applicant Well you cunts are all fuckin' calling me and ringing me. Brother It's because we want to fuckin' know bro. Applicant Well I can't tell youse everything. Applicant I've told mum and dad, I told mum and dad what I had done. … … Applicant Dad wanted to know the truth. I told him the truth.
3. The conversation ended with the applicant asserting that his partner, MP would verify that what he had been telling his parents was the truth, "'cause she was there … she knows exactly what happened". From the intercepted conversations in which MP was a speaker, it does not appear that she did know that William Chaplin had been murdered or that the applicant had been involved in his death, other than from the applicant himself.
4. It was open to the jury to dismiss the brother's suspicion that the applicant was merely "big noting", that is, attracting attention to himself and creating drama by falsely claiming to have participated in the homicide. There was evidence that the applicant's parents and brother had had experience of him lying in the past. However, there was no evidence that during the preceding nine years the applicant had claimed to anyone that he knew of or was responsible for William Chaplin's death. If he wanted to attract attention to himself with a false claim of involvement he could have done so before police enquiries reached his mother in mid-August 2019. Those considerations and the applicant's expressions of concern about what his family would think of him if they knew everything may have been regarded by the jury as negating the possibility that he was merely a fantasist who falsely told his family that he was concerned in the murder, for show.
5. The jury could have found it significant that throughout the intercepted phone conversations the applicant displayed anxiety about the police enquiries. He was explicit about that anxiety on occasions (see [211] and [213] below) and he exhibited it by ringing the Albury detectives. The applicant's conversations with Samone about "blowing it back on" Watson and with his father about "throwing it onto" Watson were the antithesis of him claiming involvement for the sake of drama or notoriety. In late August 2019, in conversations summarised below, the applicant discussed with his father a claim that he would make to police of having acted under duress. It was open to the jury to find that he was working up a basis of exculpation that he could feed to the police when they eventually spoke to him. The jury would have been entitled to conclude that the whole course of the applicant's statements over the three weeks of the intercepted phone conversations was not consistent with a person falsely claiming responsibility for a crime that he did not commit.

Tuesday 27 August 2019

1. In a conversation with his mother on 27 August 2019, commencing at 17:48 (ABS118) the applicant discussed his recent conversations with his father. The following are relevant extracts: Applicant … I wouldn't of told you what I told you if I didn't trust you. Okay? Mother … well why did you tell you father that the, the um, cutting of the throat thing? Applicant I didn't tell him anything like that. I told him … that it was done quick, painless like a sheep, okay? Applicant 'Cause he kept asking and asking and asking and asking, okay? Youse don't need to know how it was really done. Youse don't need to know anything mum to be honest. … Applicant … Dad doesn't really know much. … Mother Well I, I've told him bits and pieces. …
2. In this conversation the applicant also referred to his recent phone call with his brother, as follows (ABS130): Applicant He thinks I'm, he thinks I'm a liar and fuckin' um, I'm doing it all for attention and all that. That maybe - fine if he wants to believe that, that's great, I'd rather him believe that than know the truth. … Applicant It's hard, it was hard enough telling you the truth. I don't really want to be the talk of the table at Christmas and fuckin' Easter and all that. The applicant then told his mother that police had stopped their grid search of the property at Gerogery and that they were about to commence digging.

Saturday 31 August 2019

1. In a phone call to his mother at 19:13 on 31 August 2019 the applicant said he was contemplating making an anonymous call to Crime Stoppers. He said that he was "fully prepared to tell them what happened and what he [Watson] did". He said that he was "scared of what Paul will do. He, he used to scare the shit out of me mum". In their next call at 19:17 Mrs LT urged the applicant to call DS Wallace and tell him that he had been made to do things under physical threat from Watson. That part of the conversation was as follows (ABS161-162): Mother … just say "Look I'm fearing for my life here", not saying anything and then tell him that, make sure you tell him, he used to put knives to your throat and threatened and everything. Make sure … you tell the lot. Applicant Yeah I will. Mother Just to… cover you if you are fearing for your life, when you were made to do stuff. Applicant No I'm not going to tell them I did anything.
2. Ten minutes later the applicant called Samone (ABS163). He outlined the strategy he proposed to adopt when speaking to police, as follows (ABS168): Applicant ... I am going to ring the detective and basically say that, you know, I don't know what happened after I left and that but he used to threaten us, like, me and you with knives and guns and everything. Um, and basically we've, we've both feared for our, we both feared for our life from him and we just, we didn't know what he was capable of doing. All right? Samone Yeah. All right. Applicant So I'm gonna, on gonna have your back in this if you have mine. All right? Samone Yeah Yeah, I will. … Applicant Basically me and you, me and you have no idea on what could happen. We don't know what he was capable of doing. … So, um, yeah, I'm going to go with that. … And then hopefully we cover our ass in the meantime.
3. The applicant perceived this strategy as having the effect that he and Samone would support each other in exculpating themselves with respect to William Chaplin's death and, at the same time, would inculpate Watson. He said: Well, let's work together. And let's take this little motherfucker down.
4. The first passage of speech by the applicant in the extract of his call to Samone quoted above appears to have been the commencement of his inconsistent plan for his own defence, whereby he would deny any knowledge of what happened to William Chaplin and at the same time claim that he acted under duress from Watson.

Sunday, 1 September 2019

1. The applicant had a further conversation with his brother at 8:40 on Sunday, 1 September 2019 in which the brother no longer spoke in disbelief but made suggestions as to how the applicant might cast his defence (ABS173). The applicant said that he was "going to give a statement clearing my name" and that Samone would do the same. The conversation continued: Brother What, that Paul done it? Applicant Yeah.
2. The applicant said that the detectives had rung him and were about to come and see him. Brother Just fuckin', you were 16 years of age, [ZT]. Applicant I was 15 and I used to wake up to knives and shit to my throat. I'm scared of him. Brother Yeah. Just say you, um, that you had nothing to do with the case. Applicant Nah, nah. I'm going to say that. … Brother You just got to - you had nothing to do with it. Applicant Yeah, I know. Brother (Unintelligible) had suspicion that old mate done it. Is that what's going to happen? Applicant Pretty much. Yeah. … Basically I'm going to tell them what, what I went through living with him and then say if there's any, if anyone had of done something it would have been him but I'd left, when I left William was still there
3. At the end of this conversation the applicant told his brother that he would ring their father and tell him what he planned to say to police. He proceeded to do that in a 20 minute call commencing at 8:47 (ABS178). The applicant told his father that police had not found anything at the property yet but that they knew exactly where to look. He said that he was the main suspect. His father suggested that he was "a scapegoat" for Watson and the applicant said that he thought Watson must have implicated him. The applicant propounded the two inconsistent explanations of his involvement in the matter that he had foreshadowed to Samone the preceding day: that, on the one hand, he was under duress from Watson to kill William Chaplin and, on the other hand, that he did not know whether William Chaplin had died or just left town. The conversation proceeded as follows, with neither the applicant nor his father appearing to appreciate the inconsistency: Father You're going to have to come forward. What was your involvement in it? Applicant Nothing. … Applicant … basically Paul gave me, he told me to go wait, go wait in the paddock, he'll be out there in a minute. They both rocked up there and basically Paul said, "You've got two choices. You either fight and kill or you die now". Father To who? You? Applicant (Sounds like) Yeah. Father Why'd he do that? Applicant I don't know. That's what he was like, Dad. He done it all the time to me. Father Well, you're going to have to tell the coppers this. He was going to kill you. … Applicant … I was just going to say that I knew him. I lived with William for a couple of weeks and when I left he was still there and, but if anyone could have done it, it would have been Paul, and then I'm going to explain what he used to do to me.
4. The applicant told his father that Samone was going to say the same thing, "to come clean and tell them exactly what Paul was like. That we didn't know anything … about it". He reiterated to his father the second basis for exculpation, namely, that he did not know whether William Chaplin had died or just moved out of the Watson home (ABS186): Father … you got to throw it back to him [Watson]. You knew nothing about it. Applicant All we knew … Father You were inside. Applicant That's right. All we knew that fuckin' he moved out. Father Yeah, he'd just gone. Yeah. That's right. Applicant Paul said, Paul said that he moved out. That's all we knew. Father All right. Well, you're going to have to tell them, [ZT].
5. Next the applicant reverted to his duress explanation (ABS189-190): Applicant They should have found (sounds like) the knife. Father Found a knife in there? In the dam? Applicant Yeah, a Bowie knife. … Applicant … I don't know if I can go another day, dad. It's fuckin' killing me. Father … You're going to have to do it. I can't help you on this one. … But we're all here. … You know? And will be here right through it. I already talked to your mother. You got a hundred per cent but we got to get through this. If that's the case, well, you were fighting, you were self-defence (unintelligible). Applicant Yeah, I know. Father You know? Kill or be killed. Applicant That's what it was, dad. He pulled a nine mill Glock on me. Father He had a Glock? Applicant He pulled a gun on me and said, "Kill or be killed. You got two options". Father Well, you're going to have to tell the cops that. Applicant He used to do it to me all the time. … I used to wake up to a knife to my throat.
6. It was open to the jury to regard the applicant's talk of a handgun being produced by Watson and of a "kill or be killed" ultimatum as a manifestation of the applicant going along with his father's encouragement to propound a defence of duress, which the father referred to as self-defence. The jury could reasonably have regarded it as significant that the applicant would have had no occasion even to speak of duress, in particular in the form of a direction to "kill or be killed", unless he had taken part in the killing of William Chaplin and was thinking through a basis for excusing his actions. Having told his father on 22 August 2019 that he "and someone else made this person disappear" the only reason for talking about a threat to kill or be killed was to explain and justify that he had taken the first of those options.
7. The duress line continued towards the end of this father-son conversation, as follows (ABS206-207): Father It wasn't your fault, mate. You were a fuckin' fifteen-year-old snotty-nosed kid. Like I said, he beat you up. He used to bash ya. He forced you to do shit. … You know? That's it, tell 'em that. Applicant He used to do it to me all the time. … I used to wake up to a knife to my throat. … Father … You haven't done the wrong thing. If anything, if you were forced. Applicant Yeah. Father Right? You were forced to do it. Applicant All right. Father You know? It's self defence. Applicant I know. Father If you didn't kill that cunt, he was going to kill you. Think about it. Applicant I know. I have. … This is all I thought about, dad. Father It wasn't premeditated. It wasn't planned. Applicant No. Father It just happened really quick. He had a gun to your head. Applicant This is, this is what's been on my mind ever since we, this started. I haven't slept much..
8. Within a few minutes after this call ended the applicant phoned his mother and told her that he was going to surrender to police (ABS209). She asked what his father had said and the applicant replied: Applicant Tell everything. How he used to shoot me up. How he held a gun to my head, knife to my throat, everything. The applicant speculated that it was Watson who had prompted the investigation, as part of "a deal to get out early". He said that Samone and he were going to "back each other and pin it on him". The jury could have concluded that the applicant used the expression "pin it on him" in the sense of deflecting a share of responsibility and involvement that properly lay with himself. Again, it was open to the jury to conclude that there was no occasion for a plan to "pin it on" Watson unless the applicant had in truth played a part in the killing.
9. At 9:54 on Sunday, 1 September 2019 the applicant phoned the Albury detectives to speak with DS Wallace. He told the officer who answered the phone that he had lived with "the guy that you're investigating", Watson, who was "one person I'm scared of in this world and I'm about to rat on him". DS Wallace was not available but Senior Constable Zeromski phoned back at 10:32 (ABS238). The applicant told SC Zeromski that police were "after the right person", namely Watson, in relation to their missing person enquiry. He said that he had moved in with Watson "not knowing what Paul really was". While living there, Watson would wake him up in the middle of the night with a knife to his throat or a gun to his head. When it was a gun, "He'd pull the trigger, it would normally be empty". The applicant said this: Applicant I did know William. Um, he was there for about a week, a week while I was there and when I left, he was, he was still there.
10. The applicant told SC Zeromski that, upon seeing a photograph of William Chaplin on Facebook that morning, he was "afraid that it had actually happened". The exchange continued as follows: SC Zeromski What had happened mate? Applicant That he had gone missing. … Like I said, if there's anyone that would of, had the capacity to do it, it would have been that man. SC Zeromski So what do you think happened to William? Applicant I couldn't even tell you. I don't know if it's actually happened or if it's coincidence, but that man [Watson] is unpredictable.
11. The applicant told the officer that when he left Watsons' house and Gerogery, William Chaplin was "good and he was happy". He claimed that he had added William Chaplin on Facebook when he first met him but that he had not heard from him since leaving Gerogery. He said he "couldn't even think of a reason why anyone would want to hurt Will". The applicant said he was pretty sure William Chaplin had "said he wanted to go to like Western Australia or something, Queensland or something".

Monday, 2 September and Tuesday, 3 September 2019

1. On 2 September 2019 DS Wallace phoned the applicant and said he would make arrangements to come to Townsville and speak with him and his family later in the week (ABS293). On 3 September the applicant's father called him at 14:49 (ABS298). The applicant said he had an appointment the next day, apparently with a lawyer. His father said that he would have to tell the truth and then appeared to coach the applicant regarding a line of defence that he might adopt, along the following lines: Father So, you know, spill your guts. Get it over and - stick it behind you, bud. … Applicant … At the end of the day I'll probably look at time anyway. Father Yeah, it depends (unintelligible) and how much that anyway it's out of your hands, mate you can't live with it. Applicant Yeah, I know. Father That's it. You got to clean up and start again, you know? Just clean up. You're only young still. Applicant Yes. Father You were forced to do it? Applicant Yes. Father If you didn't do it, you were gonna die. Applicant That's it. Father You feared for your life. Applicant I had no choice, dad. Father You feared for your life.
2. Throughout these phone conversations between the applicant and his family members he said nothing to suggest that his involvement was limited to burying and burning the body, or that that was the task he had been obliged to carry out under duress. He spoke to his father about having to kill or be killed, not about having to help conceal the crime after the event or be killed. In the subsequent police interviews the applicant accepted that in the phone conversations with family members he had admitted to having killed William Chaplin. As will be seen, he sought to explain those admissions as falsehoods that he had been instructed to perpetrate, by Watson, under threat.
3. In making observations upon some of the passages from the phone conversations that I have extracted above, I have identified instances where obliquely expressed statements by the applicant to his father and answers to his father's questions were open to construction by the jury as admissions of participation in the murder. That understanding was confirmed to the jury by the fact that, when questioned by police, the applicant did not dispute that he had admitted his participation to his mother and father. On the contrary, he positively asserted in the police interviews that he had sought to convince them that he was responsible for the murder. If the jury rejected his improbable claim that he was falsely taking the blame for Watson - as well they might, for reasons given below - then the intercepted phone calls constituted a significant body of compelling, reiterated confessions.

First police interview, 5 September 2019

1. The applicant's first interview with DS Wallace and Detective Senior Constable Glynn took place on 5 September 2019, between 9:55 and 13:36, a period of over 3½ hours. That included playing back parts of the phone conversations. At the outset the applicant attempted to deploy the first half of the strategy he had discussed with his father, claiming not to have known that William Chaplin had been killed. DS Wallace immediately informed him that his phone calls had been intercepted under warrant and that his claimed ignorance of William Chaplin's death was refuted by a conversation between him and his mother.
2. Before that call could be played back, the applicant proceeded with his double-faceted attempt at exculpation, in the following answers (extracted in part). Samone is referred to throughout the transcript of the interview as "Simone": A82 When I was living with Paul and Simone, um, one night, Paul had come into my room. He'd grab a knife and he told me that William Chaplin had molested his daughter, he was caught in the act by Paul. Paul said, You have two choices, you leave my house. This is to me. You have three choices, sorry. You leave my house right now, never speak a word of it, you help with a job, or I put you where I'm, in the same spot. And when he told me that, my heart dropped. And I rang my mum, and I asked if I could come and stay with her. I then left 2 days later, after I'd packed my bags, I left that night. I left New South Wales 3 days later, 4 days later, and came up here. Um, I understand what Paul had plans, had planned. Um, but I was petrified of the man 'cause […] the one person ... that I'm absolutely afraid of is that man. […] I didn't know that William actually went missing. Um, that is the 100 per cent truth. Uh, it wasn't until recently when, um, I found out from the family and that, that youse were investigating me and all that. Um, I then confided in my mum. I also confided in my dad. I also rang Simone, uh, Watson. […] Um, I just want answers because I'm ... in trouble for something that I didn't honestly know that actually, 100 per cent happened. Um, I did have my […] suspicions that it was going to happen, or had happened. […] Q85 All right. Look, um, [ZT], again, did you have anything to do with the, with the killing, or the murder of William Chaplin? A85 No, I did not. But I knew that it was happening.
3. The applicant's "three choices" formulation, in which he claimed not to know whether Watson ever went beyond having a plan to kill William Chaplin and in which he claimed to have taken the first choice - "leave my house right now" - was obviously contradicted by the phone conversations with his parents in which he said that he had taken part in the killing. Answers 82 and 85, quoted above, were also contradicted by the uncontested evidence of Samone about the applicant's assistance with the burial and burning of the body the day after the homicide. It was open to the jury to give full weight to the admissions on the phone and to find these exculpatory claims to police incoherent and no more than a poor execution of his pre-conceived plan to deny involvement.
4. The applicant then said to the interviewing police (Q87-94) that the only reason he had claimed to his mother that he knew about the killing, the location of the body and the location of the murder weapon was that Watson had subsequently informed him of those matters. That was similarly contradicted by the phone conversations with both parents and by Samone's evidence that the applicant was present at the burial and the burning. At Q95-98 the officers played back the call between the applicant and his mother on 15 August 2019 that has been partly quoted at [167] above. The applicant repeated his explanation that Watson had persuaded him falsely to claim responsibility: A98 […] Simone had asked Paul to do it because apparently it had been found out that he [William Chaplin] had been playing with his daughter or something. I was there 2 days prior to William going missing, and Paul had convinced me to come forth and say that I had done it. I was to get, he reckoned I would have got about 5 to 10 years jail time, instead of him getting a 25 year sentence. And he would then bail me out …
5. When the playing back of the phone conversation with his mother reached the point at which he told her that he had cut William Chaplin's throat, the applicant interrupted and said this: A98 Which, that is false, because I believe Paul used fishing line, which is still in the round yard. The knife that is in question -- A99 -- l have no understanding of a knife that was used, Paul had told me it was fishing line and I was then informed to say there was a knife in the dam where youse searched. […] […] A103 I was told I had to convince my friends and family that I had done it so they would back me and also tell the truth. And make everyone believe that I had committed a crime. [… ]
6. In response to Q125 the applicant said that he had been directed by Watson to tell people that the body was in a shallow grave where it had been cremated and that there is "a large knife in the dam closest to the grain shed". At Q128-140 the investigators played back the applicant's conversation with his father on 24 August 2019, of which extracts appear at [189]-[193] above. He persisted with the claim that he was merely trying to convince his father of involvement in the crime in order to comply with threats from Watson that if he or Samone should fail to do this "we go missing".
7. As seen in the extracts quoted above from the phone intercepts, when the applicant admitted to his parents his participation in the killing he also told them that he would deny to the police any involvement or knowledge. He discussed, particularly with his father and Samone, "blowing it back" or "throwing it on" or "pinning it on" Watson. In planning how he could pass responsibility from himself to Watson, the applicant was clearly not carrying out an instruction that he should take the blame. It was open to the jury to find that this purported explanation in the police interview was a poorly thought out, far-fetched story, made up on the run when the applicant was surprised to learn that his phone calls had been intercepted.
8. Throughout the first interview, from A98 to the end, the applicant frequently repeated his explanation about Watson's instruction to take the blame. Towards the end of the questioning police challenged him as to how that explanation could stand with those parts of the phone conversations in which he had sought to develop an alibi. The jury would have been entitled to find the applicant's answers, as follows, incoherent and discrediting, leaving the evidentiary force of his admissions to his parents undiminished: Q624 Why would you tell your mother and your father that you've committed a murder and then in the same conversations try and work out a -- A An alibi? Q625 -- an alibi? Yes. A Well -- Q626 Why would you do that if it wasn't true? A Because that's what I've been taught to do. That's what Paul was doing. That's what he -- Q627 So why would you tell them about a murder - A About it and then ask 'em for an alibi? Q628 Yes. A 'Cause I needed them to believe me and give me an alibi. So if they believe that I've done it, they're my parents, they're gunna give me an alibi. Q629 So if you didn't do it, why would you tell them you did do it? A Because that's what I have to do. Paul had strict rules and I've always stuck by the rules ever since I left. I've always done it.
9. The applicant said, at A111, that he was "led to believe" that William Chaplin had been killed with fishing line. He said that he really had no idea what was done with the body but that he guessed Watson "would have burnt the body or chopped it up, he was sick". The applicant said that when he noticed William Chaplin "wasn't around", he had been told by Watson that "he'd moved away". At Q148-151 the applicant contradicted this, saying that Watson had given him a full account of William Chaplin's fate, namely, that Watson had "strangled him or cut his throat with fishing line, not a knife" and dragged the body from the round yard over to a small tree where the body was cremated before the ashes were spread around the paddock.
10. At Q158-171 the detectives played back to the applicant his phone conversation with his father on 23 August 2019, which has been partly quoted at [188] above. At Q171-194 he maintained that in speaking with his father he was endeavouring to persuade him as to his own responsibility for the homicide, in order to satisfy Watson's demand and thereby "to keep my family safe".
11. In answer to Q220 the applicant said that he had known in advance of Watson's intention to kill William Chaplin: A220 … We were having mac and cheese that night. Um, I was putting [CW] to bed, I've made her a bottle, I was putting her to bed. Um, and then Simone went to her room. Paul went to my room, and told me that Too Tall's got to go. Um, he had been fiddling with, uh, [CW], the night before. He had been found out, [Watson] had spotted him, himself. Later, in answers to Q282 and 302, the applicant said that William Chaplin went out of the house that night, "after the argument", and Watson followed about 20 to 25 minutes later but only Watson came back.
12. At A222 the applicant said that "Too Tall went missing that night. I left the next day". The applicant then asserted an entirely different instruction from Watson, namely, that "if anything ever came back on him, or came up about it", the applicant was to say that William Chaplin had "moved to Western Australia to visit a friend or relative". In a later part of his answer to Q222 the applicant reverted to the version that Watson instructed him to claim responsibility for William Chaplin's death, this time with the variation that the applicant was to say "it was me or Simone" - as follows: A222 … I was told to convince everyone that it was me or Simone. Um, that had done the job, and had cut William's throat, thrown the knife into the dam, and burnt the body near the round yard, and then put tyres on top of that grave, and that was it.
13. At Q226-229 the applicant described a bonfire in the vicinity of the round yard, which he claimed to have believed was lit for the purpose of destroying sheep carcasses. He gave these answers: Q228 What was in the bonfire? A Well, there was three sheep, there was sheep in it. Um, that's all I knew that was in it at the time. Paul had told us that William had left, William had moved out that night after the altercation they had. Q229 So do you know what happened to his body? A I don't know for certain, but I believe it was put in that fire, with the sheep.
14. At Q469-503 the police officers put to the applicant Samone's account of having been shown William Chaplin's body in the round yard, under a tarpaulin, and of his body having been moved to a location under some trees then moved back in the evening to the grave where it was burned. The applicant denied all of Samone's account.
15. At Q641 DS Wallace said, "if Paul Watson has forced you to do something and is [sic] with you when you've killed William Chaplin, here's your opportunity to tell us about that. OK?" That was said at 12:51, after three hours of questioning. In the long answers and explanations that followed (A644-691), the applicant gave an account that departed significantly from anything he had previously told his parents on the phone or the police in the interview. Even this account was given in multiple versions with further significant differences from one to the next. His answers at this stage of the interview included following: A644 Yes, I was there. Yes, I witnessed it. No, I didn't take part in it. I sat on the tyres while he done it, Paul. And he wasn't strangled, he wasn't throat cut or nothin', he was shot. And unfortunate, the, the bullet wasn't meant for Will. [...] Will was stuck up for me that night and got into a fight with Paul over me because Paul told Will that he was gunna shoot me that night in the round yard. Instead, [...] Will had a fight with Paul and Paul shot him. Will's dead because of me. Then […] Paul made me go out and get fishin' line and Paul [told] me that […] he was gunna do Will, but Paul also told Will he was gunna do me. When we got to the round yard, me and Will both told each other what Paul said. And I [...] didn't have the strength to take Paul on and I was too scared. So Will hit Paul over the head with a rock, and Paul ended up pullin' the gun at, he aimed for me but Will fuckin' stopped it. He grabbed Paul's hand and then, yeah, it just all happened so fast. And then Paul made me go inside and grab Simone's ornamental knife and throw it in the dam, 'cause I never knew […] where Will's body went. I ran inside and locked myself in the room.
16. It was open to the jury to reject this as not being a reasonably possible version of events, except to the extent that the applicant admitted he was present in the round yard with Watson when William Chaplin was, by some means, killed. The jury could have reasoned that the applicant would not have admitted to his parents that he took part in killing William Chaplin and would not have discussed with his father a defence of duress, under a direction and threat from Watson to "kill or be killed", if what really occurred was that Watson, alone, fatally shot the deceased in circumstances where the applicant perceived that the bullet was intended for himself but William Chaplin intervened and saved his life.
17. The applicant continued this narrative with a description of what occurred when Watson, after killing William Chaplin, returned to the house where the applicant said he had retreated. Also at this point he acknowledged to the police, for the first time in the interview, that he, as well as Watson and Samone, had known that William Chaplin's body was destroyed in the fire that was lit the next day: A646 … he came inside ... he had a knife to me and he said I'm next. And that's when I locked myself in the bathroom, 'cause it was a wooden door he couldn't get through. And then I waited and waited, he ended up goin' to bed. And that's when Simone told me the next morning that apparently he went to bed angry and he wanted to fuckin' do me that night and watch my blood pour all over the walls. And that's when we had the bonfire, I played it all cool, I played normal. And then that night we packed my bags and I got the fuck out of there after the bonfire. But no-one knew what else was on the bonfire other than me and just Paul and Simone.
18. It was open to the jury to reject the applicant's claim that he was threatened by Watson on the evening of the murder, at a time when Samone was present in the house. The jury may have found it highly improbable that, if Watson had been threatening to kill the applicant that evening and if he had remained violently hostile towards the applicant after the latter had witnessed the murder of William Chaplin, Watson would then have allowed a wooden door in his own home to stand in his way. The jury were entitled to prefer the evidence of Samone that she was not at the house on the night of the murder and that when she returned the next day relations between Watson and the applicant appeared normal, as did the demeanour of each.
19. At A650 the applicant provided further and inconsistent detail of the circumstances in which he claimed that Watson had shot William Chaplin in the round yard. He said the relevant events commenced with Watson kicking "the shit out of me" in the house and then lunging with a knife and cutting the applicant's wrist. He said that William Chaplin and Watson then had a fist fight in the lounge room. The narrative continued as follows: A650 William went to his van and Paul went out about 20, 25 minutes later and then […] all of a sudden he came inside, he told me that, Meet me in the round yard in 5 minutes, we're gunna do William over. And I went out to the round yard, but William was already waiting there for me. And William said, I'm here to finish you, you're here to finish me. And then Paul came out with a gun. He had the 9 millimetre pistol in his hand. […] Paul pulled the gun on me and told William to get the fuck out of the way. Instead, William stood in front of me, […] and had a fight with Paul again and grabbed the gun. And Paul overpowered William […] and pulled the trigger and shot him in the neck. And then Paul told me to run inside and grab the knife, and so I did, scared that he was gunna shoot me in the back. […] And then, and Simone was inside. Simone was in the house the whole time.
20. Again, it was open to the jury to discard this variation as not representing a reasonably possible version of what occurred. The jury could have found it unbelievable that at the round yard William Chaplin would have confronted the applicant with the statement, "I'm here to finish you, you're here to finish me" after both of them had shortly beforehand been in physical conflict with Watson in the lounge room. In this respect, the account is irreconcilable with the applicant's claims at A644 that he and William Chaplin had each been told by Watson that he was going to shoot the other. At A644 there was no mention of William Chaplin and the applicant each attempting, mutually, to "finish" the other. Further the jury would have been entitled to reason that the applicant would not have told his parents that he took part in the killing of William Chaplin and would not have described to his father a "kill or be killed" ultimatum from Watson if the description of events at A650 was true.
21. At A691 and in a number of other answers the applicant asserted that a knife was thrown in the dam, either by Watson or by the applicant at Watson's direction, so that if the death of William Chaplin was ever investigated "the knife in the dam would either come back on me or Simone". It was open to the jury to conclude that that assertion was never developed or explained in a way that made it coherent or plausible.
22. At Q655 and Q672 the applicant said that William Chaplin was shot in the neck. In yet another purported detail, at Q719 and 724, the applicant said that after an altercation between Watson and William Chaplin in the house, Watson had instructed the applicant to go to the shed in the backyard of the property and cut off about 2 feet or a metre of fishing line that was attached to a fishing rod stored there. The applicant said this: A719 Paul told me to go get fishing line and we're gunna, we were gunna hit him with the fishing line. A721 We were gunna strangle him with the fishing line. The applicant said that he fetched the fishing line and took it to the round yard where William Chaplin was already present. He said that Watson then arrived and instead of the fishing line being used, William Chaplin was shot.
23. In summary, over the course of the first police interview the applicant's attempts to exculpate himself progressed through stages of retreat, as follows: 1. He commenced by denying knowledge of William Chaplin's death. 2. The applicant then said that he knew William Chaplin had been killed but only because Watson had told him so and had directed him to claim responsibility. 3. The applicant then said that Watson had directed him to say that William Chaplin had gone to Western Australia. 4. Still maintaining that he knew of William Chaplin's death only through Watson telling him about it, the applicant said that Watson had directed him to claim that either he or Samone had committed the murder. 5. The applicant next said that he knew of the murder because he was an eye witness, not merely through Watson telling him about it. The applicant said Watson had aimed a Glock 9mm pistol in his direction but William Chaplin had hit Watson on the head with a rock and then Watson shot Mr Chaplin instead.

Second police interview, 6 September 2019

1. On the morning after the first interview the applicant was taken before a magistrate and remanded in custody. Later in the watchhouse the applicant told the detectives some further things about what he had said in the first interview. The officers commenced a second interview and asked him to confirm what he had told them that morning, to which he responded as follows: A38 That I was forced to kill William. Q39 What else did you tell us? A That I strangled him [with] fishing line. A42 I said that I, I was asked to get a fishing line from the shed, I was then also instructed to go the … where William was murdered. I was forced by Paul at knifepoint, it was either William or me, one of us, one of us was going to die that night, um, I grabbed William, strangled him, it was taking too long, instead of the knife going into my back Paul plunged the knife into William's chest. Um, Simone was at the house, she knew everything, um, the fact that the matter was, Simone gave the go ahead for Paul to do it, um, the whole conversation with Simone was probably 20 minutes before everything happened. Paul told Simone what was going to happen, either me or William were going to die that night. Um, and it was, Simone thought it was fine. […] And I was told to either throw it back onto Paul or myself. Simone was never meant to be involved with anything but Paul never did anything without Simone's permission. Ever. A44 Paul rammed the knife into William's chest and after that I ran […] inside, um, Paul came in about half an hour later and was covered in blood, he got in the shower, went to bed, um, and I tried to leave that night, Simone told me not to otherwise it would cause problems and Paul would go after my family, hunting me down. So I stuck around for about 2 days um, we did burn William's body and after that I left, I got out of there, because Simone said that Paul was talking about doing me next.
2. At A119, 120, 131 and 156-160 in this interview the applicant said that Watson instructed him to go with the fishing line to the round yard and to climb up on the tyre wall. He said that he followed this instruction. William Chaplin was already at the yard when he arrived. Watson followed and commenced an argument with William Chaplin, accusing him of having molested Watson's daughter. William Chaplin denied this. The applicant said that the argument "got a bit wrestley", that Samone come out from the house and said to Watson, "Just do it" and went back inside. The applicant said that Watson then instructed him to jump down on William Chaplin and "put him on the ground".
3. The applicant gave the following answers as to the part then played by himself and Watson in killing William Chaplin: Q166 So what did you do? A166 Dropped down onto William's back and then had him in a headlock until he dropped to the ground. And then I let him go, I didn't have the, I didn't have the strength to hold him down by myself. A167 And then Paul basically threw the knife, plunged the knife into his chest and twisted, and that's when I heard the crunch sound and I ran, I got out from behind William and I ran like fuck. […] […] Q188 So you held William while Paul stabbed him? A By the time Paul had fully plunged the knife in and gone for the, put the knife into his chest I was out from behind ... Paul was sitting on top of William's legs holding him down, yes. Q189 And how, describe that, how, how was he doing that, sitting on him? A Ah, facing forward, so William was laying down, I was out from behind him, Paul was holding William down by the mouth um, sitting on his legs and that's when he put the knife into his chest. William gasped and then Paul put it further in with two hands, and I ran. […] Q358 [… Do] you agree just before the recording went on um, you mentioned something to me about Paul having a knife to your back. A Yes. Q359 And he was forcing you to strangle Too Tall. A Yes. Q360 Can you describe that because -- Q361 -- you've kind of missed that part? A - it wasn't, it wasn't theoretically to my back but basically if I didn't help Paul I probably would've been the next one to go. Basically if I didn't do it he would've done me over anyway. Or if I didn't do what Paul had told me to do at any time he used to flog me anyway. Q362 OK. So let's talk about what Paul told you to do. A He didn't, all he told me to do was drop when I was sitting on top of the tyres. He told me to get him now, that's when I jumped, dropped down and grabbed Too Tall by the throat and I was hanging on his back because William was about 6 foot something and I was only short and I couldn't reach the ground while hanging on his back. And then he dropped to his knees and then it all started. Q363 So how do you know Paul had a knife to your back if you couldn't see behind ... A Like I said he didn't theoretically have it to my back, I was more worried about getting bashed by Paul for not doing as, when he told me to do something. So there was no theoretical knife to my back, it was more I was afraid to get flogged, I was afraid, basically I was more scared of, to get flogged from Paul than do anything. Theoretical knife to my back is more him kickin' the shit out of me for not doin' as I'm told. Which happened on more occasions than one.
4. At A168, 173 and 175 the applicant said, variously that he dropped the fishing line between the tyres before seizing hold of William Chaplin, or otherwise that he could not remember whether or not he used the fishing line on the deceased. At A185 and 186 the applicant was asked about the 9mm Glock pistol that he had said in his first interview was the murder weapon. He now said that it was not used and he did not know why.
5. It was reasonably open to the jury to accept so much of the second interview as consisted of the applicant's admission that he was present, by arrangement with Watson, when William Chaplin was killed and that he assisted Watson, in some manner, to bring about the death. This represented yet a further stage of the applicant's retreat from his attempts to deny responsibility. In this final version the applicant narrowed his ground of exculpation to duress, which he raised so belatedly and in such inconsistent terms that the jury would have been entitled to exclude it beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury's assessment of the police interviews as a whole

1. In cross examination of DS Wallace he agreed with defence counsel's propositions that the applicant's answers during the two recorded interviews on 5 and 6 September 2019 were "a series of rambling falsehoods", that "there may be some truth woven into them" but that "on the whole they are totally unreliable unless corroborated by independent material". Understandably, in his closing address counsel quoted that evidence from the detective back to the jury and referred to it many, many times. The jury, however, were not bound to act upon the officer's view that the answers in the interviews were "totally unreliable unless corroborated". It was open to the jury to conclude that the "truth woven into them" included, as the lowest common denominator of the applicant's answers in the second interview, that he had assisted Watson in killing William Chaplin by some means and that he did so in circumstances that bespoke an understanding or agreement with Watson amounting to a joint criminal enterprise to commit homicide.
2. Counsel's closing address emphasised the variations and inconsistencies in the applicant's answers under police questioning. Counsel sought to dissuade the jury from accepting the Crown's argument that identified parts of what the applicant had said could be relied upon. The Crown's approach was criticised as one of unjustifiable selectivity. Similarly, on the hearing of the leave application in this Court counsel for the applicant criticised the Crown's approach. However, it was legitimate for the prosecution to submit to the jury that some of the applicant's answers to the police, or parts thereof, were dependable and probative. It was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that unless the applicant had played an active part with Watson in killing the deceased he would not have given answers that described such a role, as in the second interview.
3. The jury could find compelling the applicant's admissions against interest, both to his parents and in the second police interview, to the extent that he admitted having taken part in the murder with Watson. It was open to them to find that in both interviews his inconsistent particulars of how William Chaplin was killed arose from his initial denial of direct knowledge of the homicide, followed by admissions of his presence at the scene of the crime, then of his physical involvement. As the applicant progressively abandoned his attempts to distance himself from the killing, so he varied the details by which he sought to put himself in a minimally culpable light. That process culminated in the duress narrative, as he had discussed with his father on the phone, when he finally admitted to police that he had taken part in the homicide.

Assessment of the entirety of the evidence at trial

1. Making my own assessment of the whole of the evidence I am left with no reasonable doubt concerning the applicant's guilt. On the basis of the phone intercept transcripts, alone, the applicant's consistent admissions to his parents were sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The transcribed contents of the phone conversations have a realism about them that is absent from the blather and spurious detail that the applicant provided to the interrogating police.
2. Three features of the admissions in the phone conversations are particularly significant. First, they were directed to the applicant's parents, with whom it could be expected that he would be frank about a matter as serious as his participation in a murder, however loose he may have been with the truth on other subjects at other times. Secondly, the applicant's statements to his parents were in many cases oblique and guarded. They bear no indication of boasting or fantasising. The applicant's reticence on the phone is inconsistent with him making a false claim of responsibility in order to inflate his own importance or, as he told police, to protect Watson. Thirdly, the phone conversations are replete with discussion of an alibi, of the pretence of not knowing what became of William Chaplin, of having acted under duress and of passing blame onto Watson. The exploration of these routes for escape from criminal liability gives authenticity to the applicant's admissions to both parents that he took part in the murder.
3. In contrast with the phone conversations, the applicant's answers to police questioning were made in circumstances where one would not expect frankness, given that the applicant had three weeks' notice that he was a person of interest and given that he had explicitly discussed with his parents the terms in which he would try to mislead the investigators. In contrast with his brevity and guardedness when speaking to his parents, the applicant's denials and claims of exculpation in the police interviews are long winded, manipulative and ever-changing. However, even those answers culminate in admissions of participation, in the second interview.
4. Irrespective of my satisfaction as to the guilt of the applicant, the case is one in which the advantages enjoyed by the jury enabled them to resolve any doubt that might be felt by appellate judges. The jury had the advantage of listening to nearly two hours of the applicant's conversations with his mother, about one hour with his father, one hour with Samone and a few minutes with his brother. The jury listened to nearly five and a half hours of the applicant's police interviews. It is not the function of this Court to attempt to replicate the jury's experience of the evidence at trial. However, in my view it is a necessary part of the Court's obligation to consider the entire trial record that sufficient of the phone conversations and of the police interviews should be listened to for the purpose of discerning whether there were characteristics of the ways in which the applicant spoke on each occasion that the jury could reasonably have taken into account in deciding which, if any, of his statements were reliable.
5. I have listened to short passages of the first recorded interview in order to identify the phone conversations that were played back to the applicant, to which his answers to subsequent questions by the interrogating police relate. The interview recording picks up parts of the phone intercept recordings. The brief portions that I have heard for that purpose show that there is a very marked difference between the applicant's tone and manner when speaking with his parents, on the one hand, and his tone and manner when providing his verbose and discursive answers to the police. It was within the jury's province to have regard to those characteristics when determining the weight to be given to the applicant's various admissions and assertions, respectively.
6. For the purpose of determining the sole ground that the verdict is unreasonable, it is sufficient for this Court to be aware that the phone conversations and the police interviews, respectively, took place under significantly different circumstances and have about them significantly different qualities, which the jury were in a position to evaluate, giving the jury a significant advantage over this Court in determining which of the applicant's statements could be relied upon.

Jury not bound to find core admissions unreliable

1. Just as jurors may accept parts of the testimonial evidence of a witness and reject other parts, so it was open to the jury in this case to accept as reliable the applicant's generalised admissions of having participated in the crime while rejecting many of his statements as to the detail of that involvement. If the multiple inconsistent particulars given by the applicant in his police interviews had instead been given by an accusatory witness, there would have been strong ground for the jury to have discounted the entire testimony of the witness. Such rejection would be on the basis that if an accusatory witness cannot give a single account of how a homicide unfolded, consistent in all material particulars at each retelling, then there must be a reasonable doubt whether the witness observed the events described at all or, at least, a doubt whether critical parts of the witness' account are reliable.
2. In the case of admissions by an accused, different considerations apply. Jurors may reason that, even if conflicting particulars are given of the cause and circumstances of death, a general admission by the accused that he participated may still be reliable proof because of the probative value inherent in an admission against interest, a consideration that is absent from the evaluation of an accusatory witness. In Sinclair v The King (1946) 73 CLR 316 at 334., Dixon J said: Confessions, like other admissions out of Court, are received in evidence as narrative statements made trustworthy by the improbability of a party's falsely stating what tends to expose him to penal or civil liability.
3. Any tribunal of fact is entitled to regard an acknowledgement of involvement in serious wrongdoing as powerful evidence against the person making the admission. In the present case it was open to the jury to consider that the reliability of the basal admission was unaffected by variations and contradictions in the applicant's provision of particulars, the latter arose under police questioning when the applicant attempted to recant from his admissions to his parents.

Watson's admissions to three witnesses

1. Kirk JA has referred to the fact that when Watson admitted to each of Samone, Sacha Priest and JB that he had killed William Chaplin, he spoke in the first person singular and did not assert that the applicant had been concerned in the murder. Watson did not expressly deny to those witnesses that the applicant had assisted him. Consistently with the applicant having been involved there were a variety of reasons why Watson may not have mentioned that fact to the three witnesses.
2. It was common ground that Watson was the prime mover and that the crime was committed to serve his purposes, either to avenge William Chaplin's sexual touching of his child or to eliminate William Chaplin as a potential witness to his own misconduct. In acknowledging the murder to the three witnesses it is plausible that Watson may have thought it superfluous to mention that the applicant, a mere boy of 16 years at the relevant time, took part. He may not have regarded the applicant's contribution as significant. He may have sought to project himself as more intimidating and dangerous by not disclosing that he had help. Watson is unlikely to have had any understanding of joint criminal enterprise liability and may not have considered that relatively minor participation by the applicant could render him liable. Additionally or alternatively, Watson may have wished not to implicate the applicant. On any of those bases it was open to the jury not to view Watson's admissions as an implicit positive assertion that the applicant was not involved. Watson was not called and could not be cross-examined.
3. In all of those circumstances, the terms in which Watson admitted his guilt to the three witnesses do not cause me to feel any doubt about the applicant's involvement, as admitted by him to his parents on the phone and to police in his second interview. It was open to the jury, likewise, to attribute no significant weight to the terms of Watson's admissions to the three witnesses and to view them is not raising any reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt.

Lies as consciousness of guilt

1. I do not find it necessary to consider the lies told by the applicant that the Crown relied upon as demonstrating consciousness of guilt of the crime of murder. There is no ground of appeal impugning the directions pursuant to which those lies were left to the jury's consideration. The verdict was open without reliance upon the lies and on no construction of them could they detract from the weight that the jury was entitled to attribute to the applicant's fundamental admissions.

Proposed orders

1. I propose the following orders: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Dismiss the appeal.
2. SWEENEY J: I have had the considerable benefit of reading in draft the judgments of Kirk JA and Fagan J. I gratefully adopt their Honours' detailed account of the evidence in the trial. Having considered that evidence, and being mindful of the jury's advantage, I have a reasonable doubt about the applicant's guilt of the offence of murder, which the jury should also have had, for the reasons explicated by Kirk JA. I am of the view the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
3. I therefore agree with the orders proposed by Kirk JA, and with his Honour's reasons.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 September 2023