Legal Research
Cases
Ngati v R

Ngati v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 3 31 January 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: John Walsh NGATI v R [2008] NSWCCA 3

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 January 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Hidden J at 2; Barr J at 3

DECISION: Conviction appeal dismissed
Leave granted to appeal against sentence
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - whether verdict unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence - majority verdict - whether trial judge erred in directing jury - jury - voting figures - whether appropriate to disclose - application for leave to appeal against sentence - whether sentence excessive - whether disparity in sentences

CASES CITED: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44
R v RJS [2007] NSWCCA 241
R v VST [2003] VSCA 35
R v Smith [1982] 2 NSWLR 608
R v Burrell [2007] NSWCCA 65

PARTIES: John Walsh Ngati
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/5254

COUNSEL: D Marr (Appellant)
G Rowling (Crown)

SOLICITORS: L David Lock Solicitor (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/3008

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hulme SC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24 November 2006

2006/5254

TOBIAS JA
HIDDEN J
BARR J
31 January 2008

JOHN WALSH NGATI v REGINA

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with Barr J

2 HIDDEN J: I agree with Barr J

3 BARR J: The appellant, John Walsh Ngati, has appealed against a conviction entered in the District Court and has sought leave to appeal against the resulting sentence. The appellant was charged that on 15 June 2005 at Airds, while in the company of another person, he broke and entered a certain dwelling house and committed therein a serious indictable offence, namely the assault of Barbara Keeley, occasioning her actual bodily harm.

The conviction appeal

4 Ms Keeley and her children, who included teenagers whom I shall call simply J and R, lived in a house at Airds. Nearby lived the Ngati family, who comprised or included the appellant, his wife, a son whom I shall call H and daughters whom I shall call simply P and T. On the day of the events giving rise to the charge, Ms Keeley had a conversation with one of the young persons who lived in the district and he spoke to her in an insulting way. Ms Keeley went to the young person’s mother and spoke to her about it, and she reprimanded him. He happened to be a friend of H, the son of the appellant. Not long afterwards the appellant, his wife, H and P walked down the road towards Ms Keeley’s house, calling her out. Ms Keeley was afraid, ran into the house and locked the front door and the security door. Members of the Ngati family stepped up onto the veranda and began banging on the window. They smashed the window. H enlarged the break by kicking out 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 Ngati v R

Details

AGLC: Ngati v R [2008] NSWCCA 3
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 3
Decision Date: 31 January 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Ngati v R was brought by the respondent, the Crown, against the appellant's conviction for the murder of a police officer. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to decide whether the verdict was unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence, particularly given the majority verdict of the jury. The court was also asked to consider whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury, and whether it was appropriate to disclose the voting figures of the jury. In addition, the respondent sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, arguing that it was excessive and that there was a significant disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused.

The court considered the nature of the appeal, the legal principles relevant to appeals against conviction and sentence, and the evidence presented in the case. The court noted that the appellant's conviction was based on the testimony of witnesses who had varying degrees of reliability, and that the jury had reached a majority verdict. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or incapable of being supported by the evidence, and that the trial judge had not erred in directing the jury. The court also held that it was not appropriate to disclose the voting figures of the jury, as this could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court held that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not excessive, and that there was no significant disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal against conviction, and refused leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the appellant's conviction was properly based on the evidence, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court also held that there was no significant disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders