CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Applicant convicted of five charges of arson – Whether convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory – Circumstantial case – Inferences.
EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Hearsay – Admission under business records exception without exhibiting document – Witness not having seen document – Evidence Act 2008 ss 48, 69 – Evidence inadmissible without tender of document – No substantial miscarriage of justice.
EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Opinion evidence as to burn pattern – Witness experienced detective with three days’ formal arson training – Evidence Act s 79 – Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122, applied.
EVIDENCE – Admissibility – DNA evidence – No evidence of innocent transference – Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 779, distinguished – Whether DNA evidence inadmissible due to failure to call every member of forensics team – R v Sing (2002) 54 NSWLR 31, distinguished.
[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 Davies v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Davies v The Queen [2019] VSCA 66
Case
[2019] VSCA 66
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Davies v The Queen involves the applicant, Davies, who was convicted on five counts of arson. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, the judge's directions to the jury, the propriety of the jury's verdicts, and the fairness of the trial and sentence.
The court examined the admissibility of videos allegedly featuring the accused justifying arson attacks on society, determining they were not inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2008 due to being state of mind or tendency evidence. The court also considered the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the business records exception, finding it inadmissible due to the failure to exhibit the document. Coincidence evidence was assessed, concluding that a striking similarity in modus operandi was not required. The court further addressed the admissibility of opinion evidence regarding burn patterns, DNA evidence, and the judge's directions to the jury. The court concluded that the judge adequately related evidence to the charges, warned the jury against improper reasoning, and provided appropriate directions on identification evidence and inferences. The court found no errors in the judge's handling of the jury's verdicts or the overall trial process.
The court concluded that the trial did not miscarry due to the applicant being unwell and unrepresented or any comments suggesting he was in custody. The judge was found not to be biased, with the court determining that a fair-minded lay observer would not apprehend the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the case. Regarding the sentence, the court found the original sentence to be manifestly excessive and resentenced the applicant to 12 years 3 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years 3 months, correcting the presentence detention figure provided to the judge.