Murray v The King - [2023] NSWCCA 79

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v R [2023] NSWCCA 79
Hearing dates: 1 February 2023
Decision date: 12 April 2023
Before: Rothman J at [1]
Wilson J at [4]
Yehia J at [126]
Decision: 1. Extend the time to file the application for leave to appeal as necessary;
2. Grant leave to appeal; and
3. Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against conviction – aggravated sexual assault – whether the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence – lack of opportunity – whether the jurors were alive to the inconsistencies, discrepancies and other inadequacies in the evidence – complainant’s evidence not implausible or incredible – jury entitled to prefer evidence of the complainant – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AJ v R [2022] NSWCCA 136

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jamie Murray (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Evers (Applicant)
A Bonner (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/149713
Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order protecting the identity of complainant.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

14 December 2020

Before:

Blackmore SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/149713

JUDGMENT

ROTHMAN J: In this matter, I have read and assessed the evidence given at Trial. I do not have a doubt of the kind that would enable the Court to intervene. I do not consider that the verdict of the Jury challenged is unreasonable or raises any doubt as to the guilt of the applicant.
I have read the reasons for judgment in draft of Wilson J. Those reasons are, on my assessment of the evidence, such that I can agree and adopt those reasons as my own.
It is obvious from the note from the Jury that the sleeping arrangements that were the subject of submissions and were said to be a cause for doubt were front of mind to the Jury, which plainly gave those aspects careful consideration in dealing with the credit of the complainant, including her reliability.
WILSON J: For a week from 7 December 2020 the applicant, Jamie Murray, stood trial before the District Court sitting in Newcastle on an indictment charging him with a single count of aggravated sexual assault, contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on 14 December 2020. A sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months was later imposed by his Honour Judge Blackmore SC. By notice of appeal filed on 19 September 2022 the applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to challenge his conviction, raising a single ground, that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
As the notice was filed…

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 Murray v The King

Details

AGLC: Murray v The King [2023] NSWCCA 79
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 79
Decision Date: 12 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murray v The King, the appellant brought an appeal against his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine the validity of the jury's verdict. The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, particularly in light of the appellant's argument that there was no opportunity for the offence to have occurred. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the jury was aware of the inconsistencies, discrepancies, and other inadequacies in the evidence presented, and whether it was open to the jury to accept the complainant's evidence despite its perceived implausibility or incredibility.

The court considered that the jury was entitled to prefer the evidence of the complainant, even if it contained some inconsistencies or discrepancies. The court held that it was not the role of the appellate court to substitute its view for that of the jury, provided that the jury's decision was based on the evidence and was open to them. The court found that the jury was alive to the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence, and it was open to them to resolve those issues in favour of the prosecution. The complainant's evidence, while not perfect, was not so implausible or incredible as to render the jury's verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

After reviewing the evidence and the jury's verdict, the High Court concluded that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed. The court held that the jury was properly directed and that their verdict was open to them based on the evidence presented. The court did not find the jury's decision to be unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, and therefore the appeal was unsuccessful. As a result, the appellant's conviction for aggravated sexual assault was upheld.

Orders