Legal Research
Cases
Medich v R

Medich v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 36 18 March 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Medich v R [2021] NSWCCA 36
Hearing dates: 19 May 2020; 20 May 2020
Decision date: 18 March 2021
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [136];
Hamill J at [797]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the applicant to rely on Grounds 1 and 2 and Ground 4(b) of the Grounds of Appeal.
(2) Refuse leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to rely on Grounds 5, 6(b) and 7.
(3) Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeals – murder – intimidation – single joint criminal enterprise - where offender directed the contract killing of a former business associate and the intimidation of his wife – history of disputes between the offender and victims – whether Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt events occurred at instigation of the applicant – leave to appeal required for all grounds - whether the jury verdict is unreasonable – whether there is a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence – whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury in respect of the use of evidence – whether evidence cross-admissible – tendency reasoning - anti-tendency direction – appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW) – s 18(1)(a)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) – s 13(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – ss 5(1)(b), 6(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) – r 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 38, 97, 128, 137

Cases Cited:
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; [1988] HCA 39
AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288
Armstrong v R [2013] NSWCCA 113
ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vines [2003] NSWSC 1237
AW v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 1
Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 92; [2012] HCA 14
Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469; [2012] HCA 59
Bin Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47
Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65
Connex Group Australia Pty Ltd v Butt [2004] NSWSC 379
Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Davies v The Queen [2019] VSCA 66
Decision Restricted [2020] NSWCCA 308
DJV v R [2008] NSWCCA 272
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; [1977] HCA 43
Elomar v R; Hasan v R; Cheikho v R; Cheikho v R; Jamal v R (2014) 316 ALR 206; [2014] NSWCCA 303
Evans v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 277; (2006) 164 A Crim R 489
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Folbigg v R [2007] NSWCCA 371
GBF v The Queen [2020] HCA 40; (2020) 94 ALJR 1037
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94

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 Medich v R

Details

AGLC: Medich v R [2021] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 18 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Medich was convicted of orchestrating the murder of a former business associate and the intimidation of the victim's wife, and he appealed his conviction. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to consider various legal issues surrounding the appeal. Key issues included whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Medich instigated the events, whether leave to appeal was required for all grounds, whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or amounted to a miscarriage of justice, if the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, and if the judge's directions to the jury regarding evidence use were erroneous. The High Court had to examine whether the evidence was cross-admissible and if the trial judge correctly applied the tendency and anti-tendency direction rules.

The High Court found that leave to appeal was necessary for all grounds, and the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The Court determined that the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence or in his directions to the jury. The appeal was dismissed as the Court was satisfied that the evidence was properly admitted and the trial judge's directions were correct. The Court held that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge's handling of the evidence and instructions was within acceptable bounds.

No new orders were made by the Court, and Medich's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. The Court's decision confirmed the original conviction and sentence, upholding the jury's findings based on the evidence presented at trial. The Court's ruling reinforced the necessity for stringent criteria in granting leave to appeal and the importance of ensuring that trial procedures and evidence handling were conducted correctly.

Orders