Melchers v R - [2003] NSWCCA 119

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Melchers v Regina [2003] NSWCCA 119

FILE NUMBER(S):
60492/02
60057/03

HEARING DATE(S): 30/04/03

JUDGMENT DATE: 23/05/2003

PARTIES:
Anthony John Melchers v Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA Buddin J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0072

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Patten DCJ

COUNSEL:
Appellant (J S Stratton)
Crown (W Dawe QC)

SOLICITORS:
Appellant (D J Humphreys)
Crown (S E O'Connor)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction of manslaughter - Whether verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence - Trial judge's directions to jury regarding close relationship between a witness and the accused - Whether circumstances under which jury returned verdict gave rise to a miscarriage of justice - Crown appeal against sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
(1) Appeal upheld (2) Set aside the verdict of the jury and in lieu thereof order that conviction be quashed and verdict of acquittal be entered.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60492/02
60057/03
IPP JA
BUDDIN J
SMART AJ
Friday 23 May 2003

ANTHONY JOHN MELCHERS v REGINA

FACTS

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter. Patten DCJ sentenced him to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years three months to be served by way of periodic detention. The appellant appeals against the conviction. The respondent appeals against the sentence.

HELD

The appeal against the conviction

A. (per Ipp JA, Buddin J agreeing, Smart AJ dissenting)

The jury’s verdict of guilty was unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence, upon the record itself, contains discrepancies and displays inadequacies to such an extent that it lacks probative force and, even making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted: See M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494.

B. (per Ipp JA, Buddin J and Smart AJ agreeing)

The sudden rapidity with which the jury changed from being unable to reach a unanimous decision to being able to reach a unanimous decision is not suggestive of a miscarriage of justice. It is not unusual for a juror, or jurors, to experience a sudden change of mind. The mechanism of a jury to some degree depends on this phenomenon.

The trial judge did not err in directing the jury that where there was a close relationship between a witness and the appellant this might be a warning for the jury to be cautious. In context, the direction was innocuous and could not have had any significant effect in the jury.

The appeal against the sentence

A. (per Ipp JA, Buddin J agreeing)

Given the conclusion that the verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence, the appeal against sentence does not need to be dealt with for two reasons. First, the appropriate sentence would have to be considered against a notional set of facts, which would be undesirable. Second, it would be inappropriate to express a view as to whether the sentence imposed…

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 Melchers v R

Details

AGLC: Melchers v R [2003] NSWCCA 119
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 119
Decision Date: 23 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melchers v R is an appeal against a conviction for manslaughter, and a crown appeal against the sentence imposed. The appellant, Melchers, was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his partner. The appeal and sentence appeal were heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence, particularly in light of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the close relationship between a witness and the accused. The court also considered whether the circumstances under which the jury returned the verdict gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the close relationship between the witness and the accused. It was found that the judge did not adequately address the impact of this relationship on the witness's credibility. The court concluded that the judge's directions were insufficient and may have influenced the jury's verdict. Additionally, the court examined whether the circumstances under which the jury returned the verdict gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. It was determined that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable or inconsistent with the evidence, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The court also considered the crown's appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant. It was found that the sentence was within the appropriate range, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. The crown's appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

In summary, the High Court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the crown's appeal against sentence. The court found that the verdict was not unreasonable or inconsistent with the evidence, and the sentence imposed was appropriate. The trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the close relationship between the witness and the accused were found to be insufficient, but this did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice.

Orders