Hegarty v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 252

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0139
RACHEL HEGARTY	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and TATE JJA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	13 September 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	11 October 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 252
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2011] VSC 262 (Whelan J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Probative value of evidence not outweighed by prejudicial effect – Reckless murder properly left to jury – Verdict not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D A Dann	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr P B Kidd SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

After a trial in the Supreme Court the appellant was convicted on a charge of murdering Walter Hughes, an elderly, frail man, whom she assaulted in the street.

The assault took place in the afternoon of 29 August 2009. In the morning the appellant took a prescribed dose of methadone and during the day consumed a large quantity of alcohol with friends. A breathalyser test was performed on the appellant that night and expert testimony was given suggesting that the appellant’s blood alcohol level when the assault occurred would have been approximately .19 to .22. In addition, the appellant may well have injected heroin shortly prior to the assault.

The appellant, apparently heavily intoxicated, was observed acting aggressively and irrationally towards persons around her. The appellant did not know Mr Hughes and there appeared to be no motive for her attack upon him. Witnesses describe the appellant punching Mr Hughes and one witness said she kicked Mr Hughes when he was lying on the ground. Mr Hughes made no effort to retaliate. One witness said that the punching and kicking were performed with ‘a fair bit of force’. Another witness described the attack as ‘vicious’.

Mr Hughes was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he died at about 11 o’clock that night.

An autopsy conducted on Mr Hughes revealed bruising of his cheek, right upper lip and an abrasion to the back of his head, bruising on his left hand, bruising and a skin tear on his right elbow, abrasions to his right knee and bruising on his lower right leg. Internal examination revealed bruising to the back of Mr Hughes’ head, his temple, the left side of his face under his jaw, his chest wall and his right bicep.

The injury which caused Mr Hughes’ death was a fracture of his spine at the point where the neck joins the chest. Medical evidence established that the pre-existing condition of Mr Hughes’ spine was such that a blow delivered with even minor force could have caused his death. The most likely cause of the injury was a blow to the front of the head, but any force which caused Mr Hughes’ head to project backwards could have produced the injury.

The appellant sought leave to appeal against her conviction on three grounds. They…

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 Hegarty v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hegarty v The Queen [2012] VSCA 252
Case: [2012] VSCA 252
Decision Date: 11 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hegarty v The Queen, the appellant stood trial for the murder of a man named John O'Brien, with the jury ultimately finding him guilty. The appellant's conviction and sentence were challenged on appeal, with the primary contention being that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was deemed to have more prejudicial effect than probative value. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decisions of the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's admission of particular evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the probative value of the contested evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the appellant. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge erred in leaving the question of reckless murder to the jury, and if the verdict reached by the jury was safe and satisfactory.

The court examined the evidence in question and concluded that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court found that the evidence was relevant to the appellant's state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not err in leaving the question of reckless murder to the jury, as there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of recklessness. The court also determined that the jury's verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory, as it was supported by the evidence presented at trial.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the contested evidence, and that the verdict reached by the jury was safe and satisfactory. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.

Orders