Hoskins v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 207

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hoskins v R [2014] NSWCCA 207
Hearing dates: 27 August 2014
Decision date: 07 October 2014
Before: Leeming JA; Adams J; Fullerton J
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - joint criminal enterprise - whether manslaughter should have been left open to the jury - whether not open to jury to find mental state other than participation in joint criminal enterprise to cause grievous bodily harm - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules, r 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
Cases Cited: Beavan v The Queen (1954) 92 CLR 660 at 662
Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; 246 CLR 334
Carney v R; Cambey v R [2011] NSWCCA 223; 217 A Crim 201
James v R [2014] HCA 6; 88 ALJR 427
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385; 64 NSWLR 527
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Darren Hoskins (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S Odgers SC (Appellant)
S Dowling SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2011/18351
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-03-26 00:00:00

Before:

Grove AJ

File Number(s):

2011/18351

Judgment

THE COURT: The sole ground of this appeal against the appellant's conviction of the murder of Jamie Lefoe on 18 January 2011 is that:

"The trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury with respect to an alternative verdict of manslaughter."

The appellant was one of a number of men who attacked the victim, who died from the injuries inflicted by them. Four men, Sean Sutcliffe, Michael Brown and Darrin Moulds, together with the appellant Darren Hoskins, stood trial charged with murder. The Crown case was that they were part of a joint criminal enterprise to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased.

On at least two occasions during the 28 day trial before Grove AJ and a jury of 12 (day 14, T771.3, and day 15, T850.6), the trial judge raised whether manslaughter ought be left open to the jury. The appellant, and two of his co-accused, were separately represented by senior counsel. The fourth co-accused was represented by junior counsel. None of the counsel for the accused submitted that it should. The trial judge then indicated that he would not leave manslaughter open to the jury. No counsel made any submission to the contrary.

Senior counsel for the appellant (who did not appear at the trial) properly acknowledged that r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules applied, no point having been taken below. However, he submitted that leave should be granted if he could demonstrate that there was an error leading to a miscarriage of justice: see the authorities in Carney v R; Cambey v R [2011] NSWCCA 223; 217 A Crim 201 at [67]. So much is consistent with what was recently said in James v The Queen [2014] HCA 6; 88 ALJR 427 at…

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 Hoskins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hoskins v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 207
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 207
Decision Date: 07 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hoskins v The Queen, the respondent, Hoskins, was found guilty of murder for his involvement in a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of an individual. The appeal against the conviction was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the possibility of manslaughter to the jury's consideration. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it was appropriate to instruct the jury that they could only find the respondent guilty of a mental state associated with participating in a joint criminal enterprise aimed at causing grievous bodily harm.

The court considered that the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury on the relevant principles of criminal law, including the distinction between murder and manslaughter, as well as the requirement for establishing a joint criminal enterprise. The court held that the jury had been correctly directed, and there was no basis for the respondent's contention that the judge's instructions had precluded the jury from considering manslaughter as an alternative charge. Furthermore, the court found that the jury was not restricted to finding the respondent guilty of a specific mental state other than participation in a joint criminal enterprise to cause grievous bodily harm, as the trial judge's instructions had allowed for a range of possible mental states.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the respondent. The decision underscores the importance of trial judges providing clear and comprehensive instructions to juries in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving joint criminal enterprises and varying degrees of criminal liability. The High Court's ruling in this matter serves as a valuable guide for future cases involving similar legal issues.

Orders