Hunt v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 152 30 June 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hunt v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 152
Hearing dates: 19 May 2011
Decision date: 30 June 2011
Before: Tobias AJA,
Johnson J,
Hall J
Decision:
Reasons for orders made on 19 May 2011:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.
3. Order that there be a new trial.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - practice and procedure - juries - trial judge failed to comply with requirements of the Jury Act 1977 - length of jury deliberations insufficient - incorrect directions on availability of majority verdicts - trial not conducted according to law - miscarriage of justice - appeal allowed - conviction quashed and sentence set aside - new trial ordered
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: AGW v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 81
AK v State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44
Cesan v The Queen [2008] HCA 52; (2008) 236 CLR 358
Haoui v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 209
Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88
RJS v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 241; (2007) 173 A Crim R 100
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lee Hunt (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: M Johnston (Appellant)]
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Legal Aid Commission (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/279744
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Lee James Hunt

Date of Decision:

2010-12-10 00:00:00

Before:

Conlon DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/279744

Judgment

THE COURT : On 14 September 2010, Lee James Hunt (the appellant) was arraigned on two counts both of which were in the same terms, namely, that between 10 March 2006 and 7 March 2007 at Gwynneville, he did indecently assault JH in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that JH was at the time under the age of 16 years, namely, 11 or 12 years. The appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges.

The trial before his Honour Judge Conlon SC commenced in the District Court at Wollongong on 14 September 2010. The jury was empanelled on 15 September 2010 and the evidence concluded on 16 September 2010. The trial judge commenced his summing up to the jury on 16 September 2010 and concluded his summing up the following morning, Friday. Later on that day, the jury returned a majority verdict of guilty on both counts.

On 10 December 2010, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to imprisonment as follows:

With respect to count 1, a non-parole period of six (6) months to commence on 10 December 2010 and to expire on 9 June 2011 and a balance of term of six (6) months to commence on 10 June 2011 and to expire on 9 December 2011;
With respect to count 2, a non-parole period of eight (8) months to commence on 10 December 2010 and to expire on 9 August 2011 and a balance of term of 12 months to commence on 10…

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 Hunt v R

Details

AGLC: Hunt v R [2011] NSWCCA 152
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 152
Decision Date: 30 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hunt v R involved an appeal against a conviction for an offence committed by the appellant. The trial had been conducted in the County Court of Victoria, and the appellant was found guilty by a jury. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had failed to comply with certain statutory requirements, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which accepted the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge had properly adhered to the requirements of the Jury Act 1977. Specifically, the appellant argued that the trial judge did not ensure that the jury deliberated for an adequate length of time and also failed to correctly direct the jury on the availability of a majority verdict. These alleged errors by the trial judge were claimed to have compromised the fairness of the trial and potentially led to an erroneous conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge indeed did not comply with the statutory requirements. The jury's deliberations were insufficient in length, and the directions provided to the jury regarding majority verdicts were incorrect. These errors were significant because they violated the appellant's right to a trial conducted according to law, as enshrined in the Australian Constitution. The Court concluded that the trial was not conducted properly, and as a result, a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders