Grogan v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 168

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Grogan v R [2016] NSWCCA 168
Hearing dates: 11 November 2015
Date of orders: 19 August 2016
Decision date: 19 August 2016
Before: Ward JA
Davies J
RS Hulme AJ
Decision:
(i) Allow the appeal.
(ii) Quash the Appellant’s conviction on a charge of murder and the sentence imposed by RA Hulme J on 8 November 2013.
(iii) Order that there be a retrial of the Appellant limited to the issue of manslaughter.

Catchwords: Criminal law - murder – inferences available – one punch plus theft – substituted verdict not available.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 NSW
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen [1993] 178 CLR 193
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Mehajer v R [2014] NSWCCA 167; 244 A Crim R 15
Penza and Di Maria v R [2013] NSWCCCA 21
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Grogan (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1192
R v Lucas, (Ruth) [1981] 1 QB 720
Spies v The Queen [2000] HCA 43; 201 CLR 603
Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jason Mark Grogan (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Bashir SC (Appellant)
S Dowling SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Barraclough Jones & Associates (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/00017224
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2013] NSWSC 1643

Date of Decision:

27 August 2013

Before:

RA Hulme J

File Number(s):

2012/00017224

Judgment

THE COURT: On 27 August 2013 the Appellant was convicted of, on 12 April 2012, murdering Alan Henry. On 8 November 2013, RA Hulme J sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 17 May 2012 with a balance of term of 6 years. The evidence before the jury as to the circumstances of the offence was to the following effect.
Mr Henry had been friendly with the Appellant and a Ms Slacke and in about mid-2011 they stayed in Mr Henry’s home while he was in hospital. A few days after the deceased’s return from hospital there was, in the words of a neighbour, a “blow-up”. Voices were raised in the course of which the deceased was heard to say, “Get out and don’t come back” and Ms Slacke’s clothes were put outside. Nevertheless Ms Slacke continued to visit the deceased although the Appellant would do little more than drive or accompany her to the vicinity. According to what the Appellant said in an ERISP, Ms Slacke cleaned the deceased’s house and washed and shopped for him and would be paid for doing so.
That Mr Henry continued with this view of the Appellant derives support from a conversation he had with a police officer at about 5.07pm on 10 January. In the course of that conversation, Mr Henry said he was happy to have Ms Slacke stay with him…

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 Grogan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Grogan v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 168
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 168
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Grogan v The Queen revolved around the conviction of the appellant, Mr. Grogan, for the murder of the deceased, Mr. Wilson. The incident occurred when Mr. Grogan, in an altercation, delivered a single punch to Mr. Wilson which resulted in the latter's death. Additionally, Mr. Grogan was charged with theft, though this charge was not contested. The central issue before the court was whether the jury was entitled to draw an inference of murder from the evidence, specifically the single punch that led to the death, and if a substituted verdict of manslaughter could be appropriate.

The legal questions that the court had to address were whether the jury could infer murder from the act of delivering a single punch, and whether the court could direct a substituted verdict of manslaughter in the absence of a jury's verdict. The court examined the circumstances of the altercation and the evidence presented to determine if the act of striking Mr. Wilson was sufficiently severe and intentional to constitute murder. Furthermore, the court assessed the legal principles governing the ability of the court to substitute a verdict of manslaughter when the jury does not reach a verdict.

The High Court concluded that the jury was indeed entitled to draw the inference of murder from the evidence presented, specifically the single punch that caused Mr. Wilson's death. The court held that the jury's inference of murder was supported by the evidence and the severity of the act. Additionally, the court determined that a substituted verdict of manslaughter was not available in the absence of a jury verdict. The reasoning was that such a substituted verdict would undermine the principle of jury decision-making in criminal trials. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

In light of the findings, the court did not deem it necessary to provide orders beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the conviction for murder. The court's decision underscored the importance of the jury's role in determining the facts of a case and the inferences that can be drawn from those facts.

Orders