Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 19) [2016] NSWSC 793 Hearing dates: 17 May 2016 Date of orders: 17 May 2016 Decision date: 17 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Johnson J Decision: Tender of letter (MFI78) rejected. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder trial - shooting of environmental officer - defence tender of letter from solicitor for Accused to member of New South Wales Parliament - letter contains opinions and conclusions - tender rejected Legislation Cited: --- Cases Cited: --- Texts Cited: --- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Ian Robert Turnbull (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr PE Barrett (Crown) Mr T Alexis SC; Ms C O'Neill (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Cole & Butler (Accused) File Number(s): 2014/223920 Publication restriction: --- Judgment 1. JOHNSON J: In the course of the evidence-in-chief of Grant Turnbull, the son of the Accused, senior counsel for the Accused sought to tender a letter dated 30 April 2014 from Cole & Butler, solicitors, to the Honourable Kevin Humphries MP (MFI78). Objection was taken to the tender of the letter by the Crown. Submissions were deferred to avoid further interruption of evidence in the presence of the jury. 2. I have heard submissions now with respect to the objection. Evidence was given yesterday by the Accused concerning contact made with Mr Humphries, who was the State Member of Parliament, in April/May 2014 (T879-880). The letter (MFI78) was not the subject of direct evidence yesterday, in the sense that the Accused was not shown the letter, nor was it marked at that point or tendered. 3. The Accused said (at T880, line 11), that he had read a letter but had forgotten, but had read it again "the other day". And that is where matters were left with the Accused in evidence-in-chief. 4. Today, more detailed evidence was given by Grant Turnbull about events surrounding the contact with Mr Humphries. 5. The letter from Cole & Butler sets out what are said to be the instructions given by the Accused and Grant Turnbull in a number of respects. They involve some strong views expressed, as opinions or conclusions, about aspects of the conduct of Officers of the Environment and Heritage. There is already evidence that there was contact by the Accused and Grant Turnbull with Mr Humphries. 6. Evidence of conversations with Mr Humphries were not led yesterday, and if they had been led, there would have been difficulty with their admission. 7. This letter is another form of communication with Mr Humphries, not setting out reference to precise events, but conclusions, opinions or impressions on the part of the Accused and Grant Turnbull. 8. In answer to an inquiry by the Court, senior counsel for the Accused indicated that it was not tendered as evidence of the truth of the fact. The question would then arise as to what use it would have, in circumstances where it is sought to place the letter before the jury as evidence in the trial. 9. The content of the letter which contains opinions and conclusions is, in my view, inadmissible. Nothing has happened in the course of the trial which renders the letter itself admissible. I decline to admit MFI78. ********** 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: 20 June 2016