Cooper v The Queen - [2005] NSWCCA 428

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Jamie Joseph Cooper v Regina [2005] NSWCCA 428

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/1444

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/12/2005

PARTIES:
Jamie Joseph Cooper, Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA McClellan CJ at CL Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/61/0133

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Norrish QC DCJ

COUNSEL:
Applicant: C Davenport SC
Respondent: P Ingram

SOLICITORS:
Applicant: Western Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent: S Kavanagh

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/1444
HODGSON JA
McCLELLAN CJ AT CL
BARR J
12 DECEMBER 2005

JAMIE JOSEPH COOPER v REGINA

Judgment

BARR J: The applicant, Jamie Joseph Cooper, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. On 13 August 2004 he pleaded guilty to three charges which may be summarised as follows:
1.            On 30 October 2002 at Dubbo he broke and entered a dwelling house and committed a serious indictable offence therein, namely stealing in circumstances of aggravation, being in company;
2.            At the same time and place he possessed five firearms, comprising two pistols and three revolvers, without being authorised to do so by licence or permit; and
3.            At the same time and place he disposed of the same five stolen firearms.
On 23 September 2004 Norrish QC DCJ sentenced the applicant, on the first count, to a non-parole period of two years and a balance of term of one year and six months. On each of the other counts his Honour imposed a term of imprisonment of one year and nine months and declined to fix a non-parole period. The terms were ordered to commence at the same time as the non-parole period on the first count. The effective sentence imposed for all offences was therefore imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years.
The applicant was a twenty-six year old man who was residing temporarily in Dubbo. Over a period of weeks he resided in various houses with various people, some of them relatives of his. One of the houses was at 23 O'Donnell Street. While he was living there it came to his notice that firearms were kept in the house next door, number 21.
He and his 15-year-old cousin broke into number 21, taking with them a jemmy and a screwdriver, and forced open safes and took the firearms. Their way into and out of the house was through number 23 and that route enabled them to approach and leave the house from the back and remain unobserved from the street. As they escaped through number 23 they left the rifles there and the applicant told the wife of the occupant that he would return to collect them. She informed the police. They attended and that was how the long guns came to be recovered. The five handguns, however, were taken off by the applicant and his companion. Although they told the police…

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 Cooper v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cooper v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 428
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 428
Decision Date: 12 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooper v The Queen involved the appellant, Cooper, appealing against his conviction for various criminal charges, including murder and armed robbery. The proceedings took place in the High Court of Australia, which heard the appeal from the lower courts. The appellant argued that there were significant errors in the trial process that warranted a new trial or acquittal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the trial was conducted fairly and whether any errors made by the trial judge were so substantial that they affected the fairness of the trial. The appellant contended that the trial judge misdirected the jury, provided an inadequate explanation of the law, and allowed inadmissible evidence. The defence also claimed that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The High Court meticulously reviewed the proceedings, focusing on the alleged misdirections and the admissibility of evidence. The court found that while some errors were present, they did not individually or collectively undermine the fairness of the trial to the extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury, while not perfect, were sufficient to ensure that the jury understood the legal principles involved. Moreover, the court determined that the admission of certain evidence, although debatable, did not significantly impact the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders