Legal Research
Cases
Humphries v The Queen

Humphries v The Queen

Case [2015] NSWCCA 319 18 December 2015

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Jurisdiction

Miscarriage of Justice

Interlocutory Orders

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Humphries v R [2015] NSWCCA 319
Hearing dates: 19 November 2015
Date of orders: 18 December 2015
Decision date: 18 December 2015
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Bellew J at [2]
RS Hulme AJ at [120]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Applicant convicted of break and enter – Crown case of joint criminal enterprise between the applicant and his brother – Where Crown case circumstantial - Whether verdict unreasonable –– Necessity to view Crown case as a whole – Open to jury to find offence established beyond reasonable doubt

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Where Crown case circumstantial – Whether part of the evidence relied upon by the Crown constituted evidence of an essential intermediate fact – Whether trial judge erred in failing to the direct the jury accordingly – Where remaining evidence relied upon by the Crown did not reveal an empty shell – No error established
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Practice and procedure – Joint trial of two accused on charges including break and enter – Crown case of joint criminal enterprise – Where both accused initially pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded – Where one accused pleaded guilty following the close of the Crown case – Where that plea of guilty was taken before the jury in the presence of the co-accused – Where the co-accused maintained his plea of not guilty – Where application made on behalf of the co-accused to discharge the jury – Where trial judge refused that application and directed the jury that the plea of guilty was not be taken into account in determining whether the Crown had proved its cased against the co-accused – Whether it was appropriate for the plea of guilty to be entered before the jury - Whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a consequence – Necessity for a trial judge to give appropriate directions to the jury in such circumstances – Where such directions were given – Although preferable course may have been to have the plea taken in the absence of the jury no miscarriage of justice established – Appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Andelman v R [2013] VSCA 25; (2013) 38 VR 659
Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521
Dunn v R [2015] WASCA 126
Lee v R [2013] NSWCCA 68; (2013) 232 A Crim R 337
Lodhi v R [2007] NSWCCA 360; (2007) 179 A Crim R 470
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mackenzie v The Queen [1996] HCA 35; (1996) 190 CLR 348
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v Burnett (1994) 76…

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 Humphries v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Humphries v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 319
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 319
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Humphries, appealed against his conviction for a break and enter offence, contending that the verdict was unreasonable and that there were procedural errors during the trial. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the jury's verdict, which was based on circumstantial evidence, was unreasonable. The court was also tasked with determining if the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury on an essential intermediate fact and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the procedure followed when one co-accused pleaded guilty during the trial.

The court examined the evidence presented in the Crown's case, which was largely circumstantial, and found that it was open to the jury to conclude that the offence was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised the importance of viewing the Crown's case as a whole and rejected the argument that the evidence was an empty shell. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in failing to direct the jury on the essential intermediate fact, as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The court further found that the procedure followed when the co-accused pleaded guilty did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the trial judge had provided appropriate directions to the jury.

The court concluded that although it might have been preferable for the guilty plea to be taken in the absence of the jury, no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The trial judge's directions to the jury were deemed adequate to prevent any prejudice to the co-accused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's decision underscored the principle that the jury's role in assessing circumstantial evidence and the trial judge's discretion in managing the proceedings were both properly exercised in this case.

Orders