Legal Research
Cases
Davis v The Queen

Davis v The Queen

Case [2018] NSWCCA 277 30 November 2018

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Res Judicata

Criminal Law

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: Davis v R [2018] NSWCCA 277
Hearing dates: 29 October 2018
Decision date: 30 November 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [219];
Schmidt J at [224]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against conviction is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – two counts of murder and one count of administering a poison with intent to murder – insulin injections to three elderly residents of an aged care facility – circumstantial case – judge alone trial – whether evidence wrongly admitted for a coincidence purpose – whether coincidence evidence was erroneously used in “backwards reasoning” – whether verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence – challenge to finding that the same person committed all three offences – whether evidence established a timeframe within which insulin was injected – whether totality of circumstances established guilt of applicant beyond reasonable doubt – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 18, 27
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – ss 5(1), 6(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 55, 56, 97, 98, 100(2), 101(2)
Cases Cited: Bell v R [2017] NSWCCA 207
Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78
DSJ v R; NS v R [2012] NSWCCA 9; 259 FLR 262
El Hassan v R [2007] NSWCCA 148
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
Folbigg v R [2005] NSWCCA 23; 152 A Crim R 35
Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131
Haines v R [2018] NSWCCA 11
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 92 ALJR 52
IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14; 257 CLR 300
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R [2016] NSWCCA 89
R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50
R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362
R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13, 228 CLR 618
R v Merritt [1999] NSWCCA 29
R v MR [2013] NSWCCA 236
R v RN [2005] NSWCCA 413
Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Garry Steven Davis – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
G Turnbull SC/A Cook – Applicant
T Smith – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Mark Ramsland – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2014/370401
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362

Date of Decision:

28 September 2016

Before:

R A Hulme J

File Number(s):

2014/370401

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and sentence

The applicant…

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 Davis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Davis v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 277
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 277
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davis v The Queen involved an appeal against the conviction of the respondent for two counts of murder and one count of administering a poison with intent to murder. The crimes were committed by administering insulin injections to three elderly residents of an aged care facility. The respondent was tried by a judge alone and convicted of all three charges. The respondent appealed against the conviction, arguing that evidence was wrongly admitted for a coincidence purpose, that this evidence was erroneously used in “backwards reasoning”, and that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The respondent also challenged the finding that the same person committed all three offences, and argued that the evidence did not establish a timeframe within which the insulin was injected, and that the totality of the circumstances did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was wrongly admitted, whether it was used in a “backwards reasoning” manner, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the totality of the circumstances established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether there was evidence to establish a timeframe within which the insulin was injected. The court examined the evidence and the reasoning of the trial judge to determine whether the verdicts were open on the evidence and whether there was any miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the evidence was not wrongly admitted and that it was not used in a “backwards reasoning” manner. The court found that the totality of the circumstances established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that there was evidence to establish a timeframe within which the insulin was injected. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and that the verdicts were open on the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge were affirmed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or in the admission of evidence. The court found that the totality of the circumstances established guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the verdicts were open on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial judge were affirmed.

Orders