Haines v The Queen - [2018] NSWCCA 11

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Haines v R [2018] NSWCCA 11
Hearing dates: 17 November 2017
Date of orders: 17 November 2017
Decision date: 16 February 2018
Before: Bathurst CJ; R A Hulme J; Wilson J
Decision:
1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal against conviction allowed.
3. Conviction quashed.
4. Verdict of acquittal entered.
5. The appellant to be released forthwith.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – whether trial judge erred in failing to give reasons for refusing application to exclude evidence of complainant – whether trial judge erred in failure to exclude evidence of complainant – whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 35(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Cases Cited: Bell v R [2017] NSWCCA 207
Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 2
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Raylene Haines (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Edwards (Appellant)
N Adams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/322267
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 February 2017

Before:

Williams SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/322267

Judgment

THE COURT: On 22 February 2017 Ms Raylene Haines (the appellant) was convicted, following a trial before a judge alone, on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm to Abdoul Barghachoun (the victim) while being reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to the victim, contrary to s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Ms Haines appealed against the conviction. On 17 November 2017, without opposition from the Crown, this Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, entered a verdict of acquittal and ordered that the appellant be released forthwith, reserving our reasons. In light of the position taken by the Crown, our reasons for making those orders can be stated briefly.
The Crown case at trial was, in short, that the victim had attended the appellant’s residence at around 6am on 17 October 2014, yelling that he wanted his mobile phone returned. There was an argument, and the victim was struck with a log to the head by the appellant, and kicked whilst on the ground. The victim sustained significant injuries, including a serious brain injury, and remained in a coma for over a week following the incident. The Crown case primarily relied on the evidence of two witnesses, Mr Danta (a neighbour of the appellant) and the victim, who provided an account to police after waking from the coma, to prove it was the the appellant who struck the victim.
The victim gave evidence that he could not remember much about the night of the incident, that it felt like a dream and that what he remembered was in…

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 Haines v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Haines v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 11
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 11
Decision Date: 16 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Haines, sought to appeal his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to provide reasons for refusing an application to exclude evidence provided by the complainant. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred by not excluding the complainant's evidence, and that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's refusal to provide reasons for declining the application to exclude the complainant's evidence constituted a significant error, whether the trial judge's failure to exclude the complainant's evidence was a substantial error, and whether the verdict reached by the jury was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. These issues required the court to examine the principles of judicial decision-making, the admissibility of evidence, and the standard of proof in criminal cases.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trial judge's failure to provide reasons for refusing the application to exclude the complainant's evidence did not constitute a significant error, as the application itself was not well-founded. The court held that the trial judge's decision to admit the complainant's evidence was correct, and the verdict was neither unreasonable nor unsupported by the evidence. The court concluded that the trial judge's overall handling of the case was appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court in light of the findings. The decision reinforces the importance of the trial judge's discretion in managing applications to exclude evidence and the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Orders