Medium Neutral Citation: Higgins v R [2018] NSWCCA 258
Hearing dates: 31 October 2018
Date of orders: 21 November 2018
Decision date: 21 November 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Harrison J at [16]
Schmidt J at [25]
Decision:
(1)   The hearing of the appeal be adjourned.

(2) The Sheriff be directed to conduct a further investigation under s 73A of the Jury Act into the matters dealt with at [126] of this judgment.

(3)   Following receipt of that report:

(a)   A redacted copy of the report be provided to the parties; and

(b)   Ms Higgins notify the Crown within 21 days as to whether she wishes to further press her appeal, in which event she should approach the Registrar to have the matter relisted for further directions and listing.
(4)   If Ms Higgins does not seek to press her appeal further, that she notify the Court within 21 days, whereupon orders dismissing the appeal will be entered.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – 81 counts of fraud by obtaining a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity, using forged documents and dealing in the proceeds of crime – where appellant convicted upon verdict of jury – where sheriff’s report provided to trial judge regarding potential juror irregularity – whether sheriff’s report into juror irregularity admissible – whether verdict of the jury should be set aside as it was reached through juror pressure, compromise of verdicts and time constraint pressures from exceeding trial estimate – whether verdicts should be set aside due to alleged juror bias depriving appellant of a fair trial – whether, if Court finds report inadequate, the sheriff should be ordered to conduct a further investigation into allegations of juror compromise and juror bias – additional sheriff’s report ordered – appeal adjourned
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 22
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 12
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 68A, 68B, 68C, 73A, 75C
Jury Amendment Act 2004 (NSW)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), s 18C
Cases Cited: Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1; [1932] HCA 9
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Dick [2007] NSWCA 190; (2007) 242 ALR 152
Lodhi v Attorney General of New South Wales (2013) 241 A Crim R 477; [2013] NSWCA 433
NH v Director of Public Prosecutions; Jakaj v Director of Public Prosecutions; Zefi v Director of Public Prosecutions; Stakaj v Director of Public Prosecutions (2016) 260 CLR 546; [2016] HCA 33
Petroulias v The Honourable Justice McClellan [2013] NSWCA 434; (2013) 306 ALR 210
R v Higgins [2017] NSWSC 1257
R v Higgins (District Court (NSW), Woodburne DCJ, 26 May 2017, unrep)
R v Higgins (District Court (NSW), Woodburne DCJ, 31 May 2017, unrep)
R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; [2003] NSWCCA 406
R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118
R v Skaf

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 Higgins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Higgins v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 258
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 21 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Higgins, was convicted on 81 counts of fraud involving the use of forged documents to obtain financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity and dealing in the proceeds of crime. The matter came before the court on appeal against the conviction. The central issue before the court was the admissibility of a sheriff's report that was provided to the trial judge regarding potential juror irregularities. The appellant argued that the verdict of the jury should be set aside due to juror pressure, compromise of verdicts, time constraint pressures from exceeding the trial estimate, and alleged juror bias depriving the appellant of a fair trial. The court also considered whether, if the report was found to be inadequate, the sheriff should be ordered to conduct a further investigation into the allegations of juror compromise and bias.

The court examined the sheriff's report in detail and found it inadequate for determining the validity of the appellant's claims regarding juror irregularities. The court held that the report did not provide sufficient information to assess whether the alleged irregularities had occurred or whether they had influenced the jury's verdict. Consequently, the court ordered the sheriff to conduct a further investigation into the allegations of juror compromise and bias. The appeal was adjourned pending the outcome of this additional investigation. The court concluded that until a more comprehensive investigation was conducted, it was unable to determine the validity of the appellant's claims and the impact, if any, on the fairness of the trial.

Orders