R v Turnbull (No. 25) [2016] NSWSC 831

R v Turnbull (No. 25) [2016] NSWSC 831

The Court admitted four out of twenty-three post-arrest telephone calls as relevant to motive and the accused's state of mind, excluded the remainder for irrelevance, risk of confusion, and unfair prejudice; ruled the Crown may call Dr Adam Martin in reply on substantial impairment due to the nature of the defence and relevant procedural statutes; and found the evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility that the deceased committed a serious indictable offence, so the partial defence of extreme provocation should not be left to the jury.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Ian Robert Turnbull
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Rulings During Murder Trial
Outcome
Rulings on admissibility of evidence, procedure, and jury directions made during trial.
Legal Topics
Murder Trial, Admissibility of Evidence, Substantial Impairment (partial Defence), Extreme Provocation (partial Defence), Procedure for Reply Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Trial Admissibility of Evidence Substantial Impairment (partial Defence) Extreme Provocation (partial Defence) Procedure for Reply Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Ian Robert Turnbull

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Rulings During Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of post-arrest telephone conversations involving the Accused
  2. 2 Whether Crown should be permitted to call forensic psychiatrist in reply on issue of substantial impairment
  3. 3 Whether partial defence of extreme provocation should be left to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The Court admitted four out of twenty-three post-arrest telephone calls as relevant to motive and the accused's state of mind, excluded the remainder for irrelevance, risk of confusion, and unfair prejudice; ruled the Crown may call Dr Adam Martin in reply on substantial impairment due to the nature of the defence and relevant procedural statutes; and found the evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility that the deceased committed a serious indictable offence, so the partial defence of extreme provocation should not be left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Rulings on admissibility of evidence, procedure, and jury directions made during trial.

Orders

  • Four telephone call recordings admitted as evidence; other calls excluded.
  • Crown permitted to call Dr Adam Martin in reply regarding substantial impairment evidence.