R v Officer A (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1395

R v Officer A (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1395

The training evidence, including the accused's assessed performance in scenario PT03, was admissible because it could rationally affect whether the accused believed it was necessary to shoot Mr Johnstone to prevent escape and whether any such belief was reasonable. Although scenario PT03 differed from the charged events, it was reasonably arguable that training concerning an unarmed inmate approaching an officer would have impressed on the accused the need for extreme caution before firing at an unarmed restrained inmate. The probative value of the evidence, including that the accused was told his response was unsatisfactory and repeated the scenario, was not outweighed by the danger of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder; Evidentiary Procedural Ruling / Application by the Accused Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act to Exclude Crown Evidence Concerning Tactical Options Training
Outcome
Evidence admitted in part, with restrictions and liberty to apply for a jury direction.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'correctional Officer Use of Firearm' 'lawful Excuse' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'tendency Reasoning' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'correctional Officer Use of Firearm' 'lawful Excuse' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'tendency Reasoning' 'jury Directions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding for Murder; Evidentiary Procedural Ruling / Application by the Accused Under S 192 a of the Evidence Act to Exclude Crown Evidence Concerning Tactical Options Training

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the accused's training instruction in Tactical Options, including firearms, and his performance in two mock scenarios involving an unarmed inmate was relevant to whether he believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to discharge a firearm to prevent Mr Johnstone's escape." 'Whether evidence that the accused\'s performance in scenario PT03 was assessed as not satisfactory should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act because of the danger of unfair prejudice, including impermissible tendency reasoning that the accused was "trigger happy".' 'Whether references in the evidence or documents to s 303 or cl 303 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 should be admitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The training evidence, including the accused's assessed performance in scenario PT03, was admissible because it could rationally affect whether the accused believed it was necessary to shoot Mr Johnstone to prevent escape and whether any such belief was reasonable. Although scenario PT03 differed from the charged events, it was reasonably arguable that training concerning an unarmed inmate approaching an officer would have impressed on the accused the need for extreme caution before firing at an unarmed restrained inmate. The probative value of the evidence, including that the accused was told his response was unsatisfactory and repeated the scenario, was not outweighed by the danger of...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted in part, with restrictions and liberty to apply for a jury direction.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the training instruction given to the accused including his performance in relation to the two scenarios identified by Superintendent Southern will be admitted save that there will not be any reference in any oral evidence or written document proposed to be tendered to s 303 of the Crimes...