Legal Research
Cases
Field v R

Field v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 332 23 December 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Field v R [2015] NSWCCA 332
Hearing dates: 27 November 2015
Decision date: 23 December 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Johnson J at [103];
R A Hulme J at [107]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted but the appeals dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – manslaughter – whether verdict unreasonable or not supported by the evidence – inconsistencies between witness accounts – inconsistencies did not give rise to doubt about whether applicant responsible for delivering fatal blow – no witness saw deceased struck by another person – jurors advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses give evidence – verdict not unreasonable or unsupported
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – manslaughter – deceased died as a result of a single punch on leaving a hotel - whether sentence manifestly excessive – challenges to fact finding by primary judge – facts were open to be found – favourable subjective case – need for sentence to reflect objective serious of offence and need for general deterrence – sentence not unreasonable or unjust
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 24
Crims (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A(3)(e)-(h)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 128
Cases Cited: BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; 88 ALJR 101
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; 153 CLR 521
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mohamed v R [2008] NSWCCA 45
Morris v The Queen [1987] HCA 50; 163 CLR 454
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
Sio v R [2015] NSWCCA 42
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage [2015] NSWCCA 278
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Craig Steven Field (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bellanto QC (Applicant)
N Noman SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
J Fuggle (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/219879
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Field [2014] NSWSC 1797

Date of Decision:

17 December 2014

Before:

Fullerton J

File Number(s):

2012/219879

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: On 15 July 2012 Mr Kelvin Kane sustained a fatal injury when he was punched on the left of his jaw. The applicant, Mr Craig Field, was charged with his murder under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Although the applicant accepted at his trial that he had punched Mr Kane immediately before Mr Kane collapsed, the applicant did not accept that that blow caused Mr Kane’s death. Instead, he contended that the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable…

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 Field v R

Details

AGLC: Field v R [2015] NSWCCA 332
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 332
Decision Date: 23 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Field, appealed against his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The deceased died as a result of a single punch delivered by the appellant. The appeal focused on the reasonableness of the verdict and the severity of the sentence imposed. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the inconsistencies between the witness accounts and whether these inconsistencies gave rise to doubt about the appellant's responsibility for delivering the fatal blow. The court noted that no witness saw the deceased struck by another person, but jurors had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence. The court concluded that the inconsistencies did not give rise to doubt about the appellant's responsibility for the fatal punch, and the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported.

The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the deceased died as a result of a single punch, and the appellant had a favourable subjective case. However, the court held that the sentence needed to reflect the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was not unreasonable or unjust, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders