R v Jones & Ors (No5) [2007] NSWSC 1155

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Jones & Ors (No5) [2007] NSWSC 1155

JUDGMENT DATE : 10 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Buddin J

DECISION : Objection upheld.

CATCHWORDS : Objection to tender of statement of Crown witness

Regina Adam Jones PARTIES : Samuel Jones Elizabeth Jean Jones Lydia Jones Adam Samuel Jones

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2006/2009; 2006/2010; 2006/2011; 2006/2012; 2006/2007

J Pickering (Crown) D Price (Adam Jones) (Accused) COUNSEL : D Stewart (Samuel Jones) (Accused) G Whitehead (Elizabeth Jones) (Accused) C Watson (Lydia Jones) (Accused) W Terracini SC/J Trevallion (Adam Samuel Jones) (Accused)

S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions) Conaghan Hunter P/L (Adam Jones) SOLICITORS : Ross Hill & Co (Samuel Jones) Neil J O'Connor & Associates (Elizabeth Jones) Ian Rolfe Solicitor (Lydia Jones) Adamson Solicitors (Adam Samuel Jones)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

TUESDAY 10 APRIL 2007

2006/2009 - Regina v Adam JONES 2006/2010 - Regina v Samuel JONES 2006/2011 - Regina v Elizabeth Jean JONES 2006/2012 - Regina v Lydia JONES 2006/2007 - Regina v Adam Samuel JONES

JUDGMENT – (No 5) Objection to tender of Statement of Mary Rose Smith 1 HIS HONOUR: The Crown seeks to tender in re-examination the statement of Mary Rose Smith made on 9 October 2005. That course is objected to by counsel on behalf of each of the accused. 2 Adam Jones Snr, Adam Jones Jnr, Samuel Jones Snr and Elizabeth Jones are each alleged to have murdered William Smith and to have seriously injured his brother, Noah Smith Snr. Lydia Jones is alleged to be an accessory after the fact to those offences. 3 Ms Smith has given evidence that she witnessed an attack upon the deceased, who is her uncle, by each of the four accused who are charged with his murder. I have been informed that as many as a dozen members of the Smith family claim to have witnessed the fatal incident. 4 Ms Smith maintains that each of the four accused was armed with a weapon at the time. She denied however that any member of her family was armed at the time. This latter aspect of her evidence was subject to vigorous challenge by all counsel. 5 The nature and extent of the challenge to the rest of her evidence however differed. Adam Jones Snr and Adam Jones Jnr have each pleaded guilty to manslaughter. By their pleas they have admitted not only being present at the time of the fatal incident but have also acknowledged participating in it. Sam Jones Snr and his wife Elizabeth Jones have each pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against them and, as I understand the situation, deny any responsibility for the fatal incident. 6 The Crown submits that the thrust of the cross-examination of Ms Smith was designed to suggest that she had the opportunity to discuss the incident with other members of her family (who are also witnesses) before the police took a statement from her, or indeed, from those other family members. The Crown further submitted that it had then been suggested to Ms Smith that she had colluded with other family members in order to produce a version of events which was false in material respects. That suggestion includes, but is certainly not limited to, her evidence that no member of her family was involved in any wrongdoing on that night.