Legal Research
Cases
Darby v R

Darby v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 164 11 August 2016

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: Darby v R [2016] NSWCCA 164
Hearing dates: 2 November 2015
Date of orders: 11 August 2016
Decision date: 11 August 2016
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Bellew J at [207]
Decision:
(1)   Appeal be allowed in part;
(2) The conviction of the Appellant, Glen Paul Darby, on Count 9, indecent assault, contrary to s 61L of the Crimes Act 1900, be set aside and the conviction quashed;
(3)   The Court direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal of the Appellant on Count 9;
(4)   The sentence imposed upon the Appellant be set aside and in lieu thereof an aggregate sentence be imposed of imprisonment for three (3) years and six (6) months with a non-parole period of one (1) year and nine (9) months.
(5)   The sentence commence on 11 August 2016, the non-parole period shall conclude on 10 May 2018 and the head sentence conclude on 10 February 2020.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – verdicts of guilty and not guilty to different counts – question of inconsistency and unreasonable verdict – issue of unreasonableness must factor in acquittals – appeal allowed in part.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Banditt v R [2005] HCA 80; (2005) 224 CLR 262
Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44
Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 12; (1997) 191 CLR 439
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacKenzie v The Queen [1996] HCA 35; (1996) 190 CLR 348
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75; (1998) 197 CLR 316
PA v R [2015] NSWCCA 18
R v Hemsley (1988) 36 A Crim R 334
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
R v O’Meagher (1997) 101 A Crim R 196
R v Randall (1991) 53 A Crim R 380
R v Zorad (1979) 2 NSWLR 764
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
TK v R [2009] NSWCCA 151; (2009) 74 NSWLR 299
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Glen Paul Darby (Appellant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Game SC/L C Hutchison (Appellant)
J Pickering SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Miralis (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/332926
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal Law

Date of Decision:

21 May 2015

Before:

Sorby DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/332926

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Rothman J.
ROTHMAN J: The Appellant, Glen Paul Darby, appeals against conviction for four offences. The Appellant was charged with nine counts, acquitted of five of those nine and convicted of the other four counts.
The trial judge granted a Certificate pursuant to s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 and granted bail, pending the appeal, after sentencing…

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 Darby v R

Details

AGLC: Darby v R [2016] NSWCCA 164
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 164
Decision Date: 11 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Darby, was charged with multiple counts of murder and related offences. The jury found him guilty of some counts and not guilty of others, leading to an appeal against the conviction. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the verdicts were inconsistent or unreasonable. The central legal issues revolved around the jury's capacity to return a mix of guilty and not guilty verdicts and whether such a mix could be considered unreasonable when the jury acquitted the appellant on some charges.

The Court considered the principles of consistency and reasonableness in jury verdicts, particularly when some counts result in a guilty verdict and others in an acquittal. It was held that the question of unreasonableness must take into account all verdicts, including acquittals. The Court found that while the jury's verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent, they were unreasonable given the appellant's acquittal on several charges. The verdicts did not align with the evidence presented, leading to the conclusion that the jury had not properly exercised its discretion.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part. The convictions on certain counts were quashed, while others were upheld. The Court's reasoning emphasised the need for the jury to provide a coherent and logical narrative in its verdicts, taking into account all charges and the evidence. The final orders included the quashing of certain convictions and the upholding of others, reflecting the Court's view on the unreasonableness of the jury's verdicts.

Orders