R v MYY[2025] QSCPR 21

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   On 24 March 2025 I made the following orders with the consequence of a pretrial application brought by the defence:

“Counsel for the defendant has leave to cross examine the witnesses;

3. a.
   Rebecca Anne Bradford;
4. b.
   Therese Michell Joyce;
5. c.
   Ryan John Joyce.

Concerning

3. d.
   The drug use and consumption by the deceased Matthew John Joyce.
4. e.
   The involvement of the deceased Matthew John Joyce in the possession or the purchasing or the selling of drugs;
5. f.
   The effect upon the deceased Matthew John Joyce of the consumption of methamphetamine (“ice”) and whether the deceased appeared aggressive or angry or irritable subsequent to its consumption.”

2. [2]
   These are my reasons for the orders.
3. [3]
   The defendant was charged on indictment with the murder of Matthew John Joyce at Townsville on the twenty first day of June 2021.
4. [4]
   There were extensive negotiations and discussions between legal representatives during which the defence case was disclosed to the Crown. In essence it was:

   1. The deceased was intoxicated with methylamphetamine;
   2. He knew that the defendant was in possession of a large amount of cash, which was part of a redress payment he had received some days earlier;
   3. There was a dispute over a large quantity of cannabis which the deceased was to sell;
   4. In the context of the dispute over the sale of the cannabis, the deceased became aggressive toward the defendant, armed himself with his knife, and threatened the defendant with it;
   5. He demanded the money he had on him;
   6. There was a struggle over the knife and the fatal injury was inflicted.
5. [5]
   The evidence the defence expected it could explore from the cross examination of witnesses available to the prosecution include:

   1. Rebecca Bradford (the deceased’s ex-girlfriend who lived across the road from him)

“you could say that [the deceased] was an “ice” user. He had used “ice” for the whole of the time I’ve known him when we were together.”

2. Therese Joyce (the deceased’s ex-wife) that:

“Sometime in late 2017 or 2018 I decided to separate from Matthew because he had become increasingly aggressive and violent towards myself.”

“Throughout the time I have known Matthew he has used Marijuana and then it has escalated to “speed” and then “ice”. I do not use drugs and initially he would go away from the family home to use. Because of that it took me some time to realise what was going on, but I noticed he would be more aggressive as he was coming down from it.”

3. Ryan Joyce (the deceased’s son) who can say that:

“I recall dad was using drugs at the time. I think he was using the drug “ice”. I recall that dad became more irritable and his behaviour and attitude began to change for the worse.”

6. [6]
   On behalf of the defendant an application for the pre-trial ruling was sought to allow cross examination of the three witnesses. “About the deceased’s specific propensity for violence when using methylamphetamine, and drug dealing activity.”

Submissions on behalf of the Applicant Defendant

7. [7]
   On behalf of the defendant Mr Whitton submitted that R v Ellem (No 1) [1995] 2 Qd R 542, R v Gibb and Mckenzie [1983] 2 VR 155 and R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244 were examples of courts ruling admissible specific propensity even though it did not establish a “state of mind”. Further Mr Whitton submitted that the decision of Smith DCJ (as his Honour then was) in R v Smith [2013] QDC 288 was of guidance because of the holding that admitted evidence of behavioural conduct over a relevant period.

Submissions on behalf of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

8. [8]
   For the respondent DPP Mr Walklate sought to distinguish R v Masters [1987] 2 Qd R 272 in which it was held, in the context of knowledge of the history of violence by the deceased, that the evidence of the deceased’s violent history was admissible. Relying upon observations made by McMurdo P and Thomas JA in R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244 (at [56]-[59] and [78]-[79]) he submitted that in the absence of direct evidence of knowledge by the defendant of the deceased’s violent past the evidence of a general disposition was not admissible. In this context Mr Walklate submitted that the holding by Lee J in R v Ellam (No 1) [1995] 2 Qd R 542 at [545] should not be applied.

Discussion

9. [9]
   In submissions both counsel made reference to R v Masters [1987] 2 Qd R 272 and to the observations concerning it by McMurdo P and Thomas JA in R v Mogg [2000] QCA 244. Mr Walklate submitted that the evidence of a general disposition designed to blacken the name of the deceased should not be received. But the point of the defence seeking to question witnesses upon the behaviour of the defendant after consuming methylamphetamine was to bolster a defence of self-defence within s 271(2) of the Criminal Code. The object of the defence was not to explore a general disposition but to establish by evidence a disposition of the deceased, in particular circumstances, to become angry or even violent. This evidence is relevant to a consideration of the contended defence of self-defence and in this case is admissible evidence. (See the observation of French CJ in BBH v R (2012) 245 CLR 499 at 519 [50].)
10. [10]
    For these reasons I made the order in question.