Legal Research
Cases
Adanguidi v The King

Adanguidi v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 82 14 June 2024

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adanguidi v R [2024] NSWCCA 82
Hearing dates: 9 May 2023 – 11 May 2023
Date of orders: 14 June 2024
Decision date: 14 June 2024
Before: Garling, Fagan, McNaughton JJ
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeal and Reviews – Referral under Part 7 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 – Court’s own motion – Dealt with on appeal.
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Miscarriage of justice – Whether additional psychiatric evidence heard on appeal was fresh evidence or new evidence – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the absence of the additional psychiatric evidence at the appellant’s trial – Whether such additional evidence is capable of establishing a reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt.
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Where three life sentences were imposed – Whether additional psychiatric evidence heard on appeal was fresh evidence or new evidence – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the absence of the additional psychiatric evidence in the appellant’s sentencing proceedings – Whether such additional evidence, if available to the sentencing Judge, would have resulted in a lesser sentence.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Adanguidi v R [2006] NSWCCA 404; (2006) 167 A Crim R 295
Application by Crespin Adanguidi pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) [2022] NSWSC 442
EC v R [2023] NSWCCA 66
Lawless v The Queen ; [1979] HCA 49; (1979) 142 CLR 659
Mickelberg v The Queen [1989] HCA 35; (1989) 167 CLR 259;
MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260
R v Abou‑Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356; (2004) 149 A Crim R 417
R v Bikic [2002] NSWCCA 227
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
R v Crespin Adanguidi [2005] NSWSC 519
Sodeman v R [1936] HCA 75; (1936) 55CLR 192
Xie v R [2021] NSWCCA 1

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crespin Adanguidi (Appellant)
The Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
B Rigg SC / S De Brennan (Appellant)
G Newton SC / C Akthar (Crown)
Solicitors:
Hal Jon Ginges & Company (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2003/6089
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Common Law Division

Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 442

Date of Decision:

14 April 2022

Before:

Dhanji J

File Number(s):

2003/6089

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 14 April 2005, Crespin Adanguidi (the appellant) was convicted by a jury of three counts of murder, which occurred…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adanguidi v The King

Details

AGLC: Adanguidi v The King [2024] NSWCCA 82
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 82
Decision Date: 14 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adanguidi v The King involved an appeal against both conviction and sentencing by the appellant, who was found guilty of multiple crimes and subsequently received life sentences. The appellant challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence, arguing that the absence of additional psychiatric evidence at the trial and sentencing proceedings constituted a miscarriage of justice. This evidence, which was presented during the appeal, pertained to the appellant's mental health and capacity at the time of the crimes. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the additional psychiatric evidence presented during the appeal constituted fresh evidence or new evidence, and whether the absence of this evidence at the trial and sentencing proceedings resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also needed to determine whether the additional psychiatric evidence could have established a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt, as well as whether it would have led to a lesser sentence had it been available during sentencing.

The court found that the additional psychiatric evidence presented during the appeal was not new evidence but fresh evidence. This distinction was crucial as fresh evidence can be considered in an appeal, whereas new evidence cannot. The court examined the impact of this fresh evidence on the appellant's trial and sentencing proceedings. It concluded that while the fresh evidence did provide insight into the appellant's mental health and capacity, it did not establish a reasonable doubt about his guilt or suggest that a different sentence would have been imposed. Consequently, the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant's conviction and the three life sentences imposed remained intact.

Orders