Basten JA at [1]; R A Hulme J at [93]; Adamson J at [137]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of Dennis Burns.
(2) Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
(3) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the sentence imposed on him for the said murder.
(4) Dismiss the appeal against sentence.
Catchwords:
CRIME – conviction appeal – murder – jury direction – directions on self-defence – question trail – whether formulation of test of self-defence in question trail confusing – whether question trail improperly shifted burden of proof from prosecution – whether question trail allowed for alternative manslaughter conviction
CRIME – sentence appeal – manifestly excessive – whether offence part of planned criminal activity - whether aggravating factor incorrectly identified in statute constitutes material error – whether provocation as mitigating factor in sentencing – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)(n), s 21A(3)(c)
CRIME – standard of proof – whether reference in trial judge’s directions to “reasonable possibility” undermined the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
[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 Moore v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Moore v R [2016] NSWCCA 185
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 185
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Moore v R, the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant was convicted of the murder of the victim and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issues in the appeal were the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding self-defence, the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, and the standard of proof applied in the trial.
The court examined whether the trial judge's formulation of the test for self-defence in the question trail was confusing and whether it improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution. The court considered whether the question trail allowed for an alternative conviction of manslaughter. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions were not confusing and appropriately allowed for the consideration of self-defence and manslaughter. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether certain aggravating factors were correctly identified. The court found no material error in the identification of aggravating factors and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Regarding the standard of proof, the court held that the reference to "reasonable possibility" in the trial judge's directions did not undermine the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.