Legal Research
Cases
Crickitt v R

Crickitt v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 240 26 October 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Crickitt v R [2018] NSWCCA 240
Hearing dates: 29 August 2018
Decision date: 26 October 2018
Before: Bathurst CJ
R A Hulme J
Davies J
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – murder – conviction appeal – whether verdict unreasonable – whether direct evidence establishing cause of death necessary to prove that alleged cause of death in fact caused death of deceased – deceased allegedly injected by accused with dose of insulin – not fatal to prosecution that there was no direct evidence that death occurred as result of administration of insulin – well open to trial judge to infer that applicant caused death of deceased – whether trial judge erred by not directing himself regarding applicant’s loss of forensic opportunity – issue for trial judge was whether elements of Crown's circumstantial case were capable of proving offence beyond reasonable doubt – no occasion for judge to give himself a warning
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 38
Cases Cited: Bell v R [2017] NSWCCA 207
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Mahmood v The State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 542
R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brian Kenneth Crickitt (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Wendler (Applicant)
Ms M England (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Streeton Lawyers
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2014/356147
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Citation:

[2016] NSWSC 1738

Date of Decision:

8 December 2016

Before:

Hoeben CJ at CL

File Number(s):

2014/356147

Judgment

THE COURT: Brian Kenneth Crickitt applies for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his wife, Christine Crickitt, at Woodbine on or about 1 January 2010.
The applicant was found guilty on 8 December 2016 following a judge-alone trial before Hoeben CJ at CL: R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738. On 5 May 2017 his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 27 years with a non-parole period of 20 years and 3 months: R v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 542.
Leave is sought to appeal against conviction on the following grounds:

1 That having regard to the whole of the evidence at trial the finding by the trial judge of a verdict of "guilty" of murder was, within the meaning of…

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 Crickitt v R

Details

AGLC: Crickitt v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Crickitt v R, the appellant was convicted of murder and was appealing to the High Court of Australia. The deceased, a 70-year-old man, died after being administered an insulin injection. The appellant, the deceased's daughter, had access to the insulin and was the only person present when the deceased died. The court was tasked with determining whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and whether direct evidence of the cause of death was necessary to prove that the alleged cause of death in fact caused the death of the deceased.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the trial judge erred in not directing himself regarding the appellant's loss of forensic opportunity and whether the trial judge erred in not directing himself regarding the need for direct evidence of the cause of death. The court had to consider whether the circumstantial evidence presented in the case was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge should have given himself a warning regarding the appellant's loss of forensic opportunity.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that it was not fatal to the prosecution that there was no direct evidence that the death occurred as a result of the administration of insulin. The court also held that it was well open to the trial judge to infer that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. The court further held that there was no occasion for the judge to give himself a warning regarding the appellant's loss of forensic opportunity. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented in the case was sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that it was not fatal to the prosecution that there was no direct evidence that the death occurred as a result of the administration of insulin. The court also held that it was well open to the trial judge to infer that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. The court further held that there was no occasion for the judge to give himself a warning regarding the appellant's loss of forensic opportunity.

Orders