Legal Research
Cases
Meakin v R

Meakin v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 288 14 December 2018

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: Meakin v R [2018] NSWCCA 288
Hearing dates: 15 August 2018
Decision date: 14 December 2018
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [140];
Fagan J at [151]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal is granted.
(2)   Ground 1 of the appeal is rejected.
(3)   The appeal is allowed on ground 2 only.
(4)   Quash the appellant’s conviction of murder.
(5)   Order that there be a retrial of the appellant on the indictment.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – appellant convicted by jury of murder – appellant was driving, with his blood-alcohol level in excess of prescribed concentration, when his van struck and killed the deceased – appellant had an altercation with the deceased prior to the collision – appellant alleged that the collision was an accident – whether the jury verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by evidence – discussion of the role of an appellate court in addressing “unreasonable verdict” grounds of appeal – whether the trial judge erred in leaving to the jury evidence of the appellant’s flight from the scene, or alternatively leaving such evidence to the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1), 6(1)
Cases Cited: Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; [1975] HCA 42
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; (2013) 88 ALJR 101
Belhaven and Stenton Peerage (1875) 1 App Case 278
Dickson v The Queen (2017) 94 NSWLR 476; [2017] NSWCCA 78
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
GAX v The Queen [2017] HCA 25; (2017) 91 ALJR 698
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 106; [1998] HCA 21
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439; [1997] HCA 56
Kalbasi v Western Australia [2018] HCA 7
Lane v The Queen [2018] HCA 28
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Martinez v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 143; (2007) 172 A Crim R 389
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66
Power & Power v R (1996) 87 A Crim R 407
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Power (1996) 87 A Crim R 407
R v White [1998] 2 SCR 72
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35
Romolo v R [2018] NSWCCA 3
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
The…

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 Meakin v R

Details

AGLC: Meakin v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 288
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 288
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meakin was convicted by a jury of the murder of the deceased, who died as a result of injuries sustained when Meakin's van struck him. Meakin was driving the van at the time of the collision, with a blood-alcohol level in excess of the prescribed concentration. Prior to the collision, Meakin had an altercation with the deceased, and Meakin claimed that the collision was an accident. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by evidence.

The appeal hinged on two key legal issues. Firstly, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence. The court considered the role of an appellate court in addressing such grounds of appeal, noting that an appellate court must consider whether the verdict is so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could have reached it on the evidence. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in leaving to the jury evidence of Meakin's flight from the scene, or alternatively leaving such evidence to the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence, and it was not so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could have reached it. The court found that the evidence supported the possibility of both a deliberate act and an accident, and it was for the jury to determine which theory was more probable. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in leaving to the jury evidence of Meakin's flight from the scene, as it was relevant to the question of whether Meakin was conscious of guilt at the time of the collision.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding Meakin's conviction for murder. The court held that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence, and it was not so unreasonable that no reasonable jury could have reached it. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in leaving to the jury evidence of Meakin's flight from the scene. Meakin's conviction for murder was therefore upheld.

Orders