Legal Research
Cases
Carlyle-Watson v The Queen

Carlyle-Watson v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 226 27 September 2019

Appeal

Accessorial Liability

Recklessness

Criminal Law

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: Carlyle-Watson v R [2019] NSWCCA 226
Hearing dates: 9 August 2019
Date of orders: 27 September 2019
Decision date: 27 September 2019
Before: Payne JA at [1]; Garling J at [87]; Wright J at [88]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
(2) Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
(3) Appeal against conviction allowed.
(4) Set aside the applicant’s conviction.
(5) Remit the matter to the District Court arraignment list on Friday 4 October 2019.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – accessorial liability – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61J – where basis of Crown case unclear – whether trial judge conflated concepts from joint criminal enterprise to directions to the jury on proof of accessorial liability – recklessness insufficient for accessorial liability

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61J
Criminal Appeal Act1912 (NSW), s 6
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4

Cases Cited:
Blundell v R [2019] NSWCCA 3
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473; [1985] HCA 29
Justins v The Queen (2010) 79 NSWLR 544; [2010] NSWCCA 242
KA v R [2015] NSWCCA 111
Kalbasi v Western Australia [2018] HCA 7; 92 ALJR 305
Kupferberg (1919) 13 Cr App R 166
OKS v Western Australia [2019] HCA 10; 93 ALJR 438
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
R v Button (2002) 54 NSWLR 455; [2002] NSWCCA 159
R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402; [1971] 3 All ER 344
R v Phan (2001) 53 NSWLR 480; [2001] NSWCCA 29
United States v Peoni 100 F 2d 401 (1938)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tristan Carlyle-Watson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I H Nash (Applicant)
E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/00301050
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of the complainant pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

8 August 2017 (Verdict)
19 January 2018 (Sentence)

Before:

Norton SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/00301050

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant, Tristan Carlyle-Watson, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, in company, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The applicant was one of a number of men who the Crown alleged participated in, or were present at, a number of incidents of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, recorded, in part, on a GoPro camera. The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The issues on appeal were whether a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by:

a failure to identify whether the applicant was liable as an accessory present at the scene or…

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 Carlyle-Watson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Carlyle-Watson v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 226
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 226
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Carlyle-Watson, appealed against a conviction in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the basis of the Crown’s case was unclear and that the trial judge had conflated the concepts from a joint criminal enterprise to the directions to the jury on the proof of accessorial liability. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The Crown had charged Carlyle-Watson as an accessory to a shooting and wounding, and the trial judge directed the jury on accessorial liability. Carlyle-Watson argued that the trial judge had conflated concepts from a joint criminal enterprise to the directions to the jury on the proof of accessorial liability.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the legal requirements for accessorial liability under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61J. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether recklessness was sufficient to establish accessorial liability, or whether there was a higher threshold of proof required. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had adequately explained the distinction between the concepts of joint criminal enterprise and accessorial liability.

The court found that the trial judge had conflated the concepts of joint criminal enterprise and accessorial liability in the directions to the jury. The court held that the trial judge had not adequately explained the distinction between these two concepts, and that this had led to confusion in the jury’s understanding of the legal requirements for accessorial liability. The court held that recklessness was not sufficient to establish accessorial liability, and that a higher threshold of proof was required. The court found that the trial judge had not adequately directed the jury on this point, and that this had led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial. The court noted that the Crown would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Carlyle-Watson had the necessary intention to assist, encourage or facilitate the commission of the offence, and that this intention was present at the time of the offence. The court emphasised that the distinction between joint criminal enterprise and accessorial liability was important, and that the trial judge needed to ensure that the jury understood this distinction before convicting on a charge of accessorial liability.

Orders