1. Grant leave to appeal against conviction, confined to ground 1 of the notice of application for leave to appeal filed 28 May 2015.
2. Appeal against conviction allowed.
3. Quash the appellant’s conviction for murder on the charge contained in the indictment against him dated 28 October 2013.
4. Order that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for retrial.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – murder – written directions to jury – “question trail” – whether reversal of onus of proof – whether questions correctly formulated issues for jury – relationship between written and oral directions to jury – whether departure from formulation of “beyond reasonable doubt” – whether error in trial judge’s unreliability direction – where no objection taken at trial – whether proviso applicable
[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 Hadchiti v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hadchiti v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 63
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 63
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Hadchiti v The Queen involved the respondent, who had been convicted of murder. The primary issue before the court was whether there was an error in the trial judge's written directions to the jury, which included a "question trail." The appellant argued that the written directions, when considered with the oral directions, amounted to a reversal of the onus of proof, improperly formulated the issues for the jury, and departed from the proper articulation of the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt." Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge's direction on unreliability was erroneous, although no objection was raised during the trial.
The court examined the written and oral directions collectively to assess whether they improperly shifted the onus of proof. It found that the directions did not reverse the onus of proof or incorrectly frame the issues for the jury. The court also concluded that the directions did not depart from the standard of proof required for a conviction. Regarding the unreliability direction, the court held that, in the absence of an objection, the proviso under section 14B(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act applied, and no error was found in the trial judge's direction.
Ultimately, the court determined that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial, and the appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed. The court held that the trial judge's directions were legally sound and did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial.