Criminal law - murder - conviction appeal - whether verdict unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence - circumstantial case - necessity to consider combination and totality of circumstances - significance of jury bringing to bear their common experience of human affairs and common sense - open to jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt - whether trial miscarried because of pre-trial publicity bringing adverse notoriety - note from jury enquiring about evidence of motivation and character - did not indicate jury was influenced by the publicity - nor was the publicity such that there was a miscarriage of justice - appeal dismissed.
Bruce Allan Burrell - Appellant The Crown - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2002/2401
COUNSEL:
M Ierace SC - Appellant D Arnott SC - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Greg Murray - Appellant S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2002/92
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Kirby J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
8 February 2008 (sentence)
CCA 2002/2401 SC 2002/92
GILES JA HOWIE J BUDDIN J
Friday 31 July 2009
Bruce BURRELL v REGINA
Judgment
: The appellant was indicted on the charge that -
“On or about 30th May 1995 at a place unknown, in the State of New South Wales, [he] did murder Dorothy Ellen…
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 Burrell v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Burrell, appealed against his conviction for murder, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The core of the appeal revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence presented against Burrell, which was largely circumstantial, and whether the jury's verdict was affected by pre-trial publicity.
The legal issues before the court included whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, and whether the pre-trial publicity had influenced the jury's decision, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court examined the principles of circumstantial evidence and the role of the jury in weighing such evidence. It also considered the impact of pre-trial publicity on the trial process.
In its reasoning, the court emphasised that it is open to a jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on a combination and totality of circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the jury was capable of applying their common experience of human affairs and common sense. The note from the jury asking about evidence of motivation and character did not indicate that the jury was influenced by the publicity, nor did the publicity itself result in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict.