Legal Research
Cases
Biles v The Queen

Biles v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 52 18 March 2019

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: Biles v R [2019] NSWCCA 52
Hearing dates: 15 October 2018
Date of orders: 18 March 2019
Decision date: 18 March 2019
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Price J at [2];
Davies J at [229]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted;
2. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – murder – admissions by appellant – whether verdict unreasonable – whether reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder available on the evidence – whether miscarriage of justice by failure by trial judge to direct the jury that if the admitted blows were the traumatic cause of death, appellant was to be acquitted of murder – Rule 4 – whether appellant had lost real chance of acquittal
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules, r, 4
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Lane v The Queen [2018] HCA 28; (2018) 357 ALR 1
Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
R v Moffatt [2000] NSWCCA 174; (2000) 112 A Crim R 201
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; (2009) 199 A Crim R
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27
Sio v R [2015] NSWCCA 42
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 208; [2016] HCA 35
The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Darryl Anthony Biles (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Francis (Appellant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/122961
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law – Criminal

Citation:

[2017] NSWSC 525

Date of Decision:

07 March 2017

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2015/122961

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with the analysis and order of Price J.
PRICE J: On 20 February 2017, Darryl Anthony Biles (“the appellant”) was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the murder of Maleeta Louise Hart (“the deceased”) at Brewarrina on 25 April 2015 before Fagan J (“the judge”). There was an alternative charge of manslaughter. The appellant pleaded not guilty to each count.
On 7 March 2017, the jury returned a verdict of guilty to murder. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 24 years with a non-parole period of 18 years.
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the following grounds:

“(1) The verdict is unreasonable.

(2) A miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury to identify which act or acts of the appellant, relied upon by the Crown, caused death, and, whether at such time of the commission of the act or acts the appellant had the intent to cause really serious injury or death.

(3) A miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury that if there was a reasonable possibility…

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 Biles v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Biles v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 52
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 52
Decision Date: 18 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court concerns the conviction of the appellant, Biles, for murder. Biles was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of the state. The central dispute is whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or whether there existed a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence of murder. The appellant also contends that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on certain legal principles constituted a miscarriage of justice and that he had lost a real chance of acquittal.

The legal issues in this appeal revolve around the interpretation and application of the criminal law principles pertinent to murder and the role of the trial judge in directing the jury. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented and the admissions made by the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury that if the admitted blows were the traumatic cause of death, the appellant should be acquitted of murder. The court also examined whether the appellant had lost a real chance of acquittal due to the alleged failure of the trial judge to properly direct the jury.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented and the admissions made by the appellant. It was found that while there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence of murder, the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's failure to provide the specific direction as requested by the appellant. The court found that the appellant had not lost a real chance of acquittal as the trial judge's directions were adequate in the context of the evidence and the submissions made during the trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The court found that the jury's verdict was open on the evidence, and there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial proceedings. The appellant's submissions regarding the failure to direct the jury on the specific legal principle did not succeed, and the conviction was affirmed.

Orders