In relation to the conviction appeal, the orders are as follows:
(1) Leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 16 is refused.
(2) Leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 is granted but the appeal in respect of those grounds is dismissed.
In relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the orders are as follows:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(2) The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – two counts of murder – insulin administered to two elderly residents of aged care facility – applicant registered nurse working on night shift – motive and opportunity established – circumstantial case – whether defence counsel failed to follow instructions – whether Crown relied upon coincidence and propensity reasoning – whether the two murders could be properly characterised as a single transaction – whether hearing two counts of murder together gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether evidence in one count could be used as evidence in the other count by jury – whether evidence of admissions by applicant wrongly admitted – whether Crown’s closing address gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge’s summing up was unfair and unbalanced – whether guilty verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence – appeal dismissed – SENTENCE 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 Haines v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Haines v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 269
Case
[2018] NSWCCA 269
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Haines was convicted of two counts of murder, having administered insulin to two elderly residents of an aged care facility. The applicant, a registered nurse working on the night shift, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years. The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence. The main issues for determination were whether the defence counsel's failure to follow instructions, the Crown's reliance on coincidence and propensity reasoning, and the trial judge's summing up were grounds for allowing the appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant also argued that the two murders should have been treated as a single transaction, and that the admission of certain evidence and the Crown's closing address gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the trial judge had properly directed the jury as to the considerations relevant to the coincidence and propensity reasoning, and that the admission of evidence of admissions made by the applicant was not prejudicial. The Court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial judge's summing up, and that the guilty verdict was open on the evidence before the jury. The Court also held that the two murders could be properly characterised as separate transactions, and that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence of admissions made by the applicant. The Court further held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in admitting evidence of the two murders, and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the Crown's closing address.
The Court held that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years. The Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the applicant's sentence, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.