Regina v Leeanne Trevenna [2002] NSWSC 1276

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Leeanne Trevenna [2002] NSWSC 1276 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70215/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 11/09/02, 12/09/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 September 2002

PARTIES : Regina Leeanne Trevenna JUDGMENT OF : Buddin J

COUNSEL : B Newport QC (Crown) M Ramage QC (Accused) SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor (Crown) Armstrong Legal (Accused) CATCHWORDS : Admissibility of evidence of discussions between representatives of Crown and accused concerning possible plea - whether the communication constituted an "admission" made with authority - loss of client legal privilege - inferences to be drawn adverse to accused person from counsel's conduct of committal proceedings. LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act CASES CITED : R v Abdallah [2001] NSWCCA 506 R v Blacktopp (1988) 94 FLR 273 DECISION : Evidence ruled inadmissible.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

Wednesday 18 September 2002

70215/02 – REGINA v LEEANNE TREVENNA

JUDGMENT – Admissibility of evidence of Tim MacIntosh 1 HIS HONOUR: The Crown seeks to lead evidence from a Mr Tim MacIntosh who is a trial advocate with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In that capacity he had responsibility for the conduct of the committal proceedings against the accused. 2 Since Mr Ramage QC took objection to the Crown leading evidence from Mr MacIntosh, I heard argument upon the matter before the jury was empanelled. 3 I have been provided with a copy of a statement prepared by Mr MacIntosh which is dated 19 August 2002. Paragraphs six and seven of that statement are in the following terms: On the morning of 21 June 2001 Ms White advised magistrate Barkell LCM and myself in chambers that she had fresh instructions that morning from the defendant. At that time she asked whether the DPP would accept a guilty plea to manslaughter in lieu of the murder charge her client was facing on the basis that she (Trevenna) had been involved in some sort of either a home invasion or robbery type offence which had gone wrong and during which someone other than her client had fired a shot which killed the deceased Terry O'Brien. As I believe I was obligated to take this "offer" up with the Director I sought a brief adjournment while I returned to the Directors Chambers. I spoke with Roy Ellis Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. I returned to court and advised Ms White and Magistrate Barkell that the offer as conveyed to me without any further details would not be accepted. Thereafter Ms White indicated she could no longer appear in the matter and leave was granted to her by the magistrate to withdraw from the matter. The matter did not proceed any further at that time. 4 Subsequent to Ms White's withdrawal from the matter, another solicitor, Mr Neil-Smith appeared on behalf of the accused. Paragraphs nine and eleven of Mr MacIntosh's statement are in the following terms: On 26 November 2001 Mr Neil-Smith put certain matters to magistrate Barkell to the effect that his client had been in the company of the deceased, and left after having had an argument with him. At a later time she had returned to the deceased's home after having been to the home of Kevin Stokes and Nicole Ollerenshaw and saw that he (O'Brien) had been shot. I called a prosecution witness Vanessa Kendall on 6 March 2002. Ms Kendall was cross examined by Mr Neil-Smith on this day. It was suggested to her by Mr Neil-Smith that Trevenna had not in fact admitted to shooting the deceased but rather that she described seeing Terry O'Brien at a time when he had already been shot. At lines 50-55 of page 48 (transcript 6 March 2002) for example it was suggested to Kendall that "you had a conversation with Leanne in the car outside the Flower Hut she said words to the effect that "Terry's been shot. I need money. Can you give me $1000?" The question was rejected over objection although later asked again in essentially the same terms (lines 32 and following page 49 transcript 6 March 2002). There was further cross examination of Kendall about the defendant Trevenna having returned to the crime scene a second time to "clean the mobile phone of her prints." (Transcript page 50 lines 2-4 6 March 2002.) 5 I also heard evidence from Mr MacIntosh and was provided with what the Crown said were relevant pages from the committal transcript which involved exchanges between the magistrate and the accused's legal representatives. 6 I was also provided with and have had regard to, a copy of the Crown case statement which, I am informed, accurately encapsulates how the Crown will put its case against the accused. In essence the Crown alleges that the accused murdered the deceased (with whom she was well acquainted) by shooting him in the back of the head with a shotgun. The Crown alleges that she is a principal in the first degree. It relies, principally but not solely, upon the evidence of two women, with whom the accused was on apparently friendly terms. I am informed that they will relate conversations with the accused in which she (the accused) made admissions to having shot and killed the deceased. 7 In his sworn evidence Mr MacIntosh was asked to recall what Ms White had said during the conversation in the magistrate's chambers. He said: A As best I recall she said I received or I have got fresh instructions from my client and she wishes to know whether the Crown would accept a guilty plea to manslaughter in the circumstances or in the context of there having been either a home invasion or an armed robbery at the deceased's house.