Legal Research
Cases
Quinn v The King

Quinn v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 229 8 September 2023

Miscarriage of Justice

Consciousness of Guilt

Criminal Law

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: Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229
Hearing dates: 09 June 2023
Date of orders: 08 September 2023
Decision date: 08 September 2023
Before: Bell CJ at [1];
Wilson J at [143];
Sweeney J at [154].
Decision:
1.   Grant an extension of time and leave to appeal.
2.   Appeal allowed.
3.   Quash the Applicant’s conviction for the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter.
4.   In lieu thereof, order that the Applicant be acquitted.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – where Applicant convicted of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence – whether Crown excluded the reasonable possibility that the Applicant believed that her co-accused saw her being threatened with a gun on the street such that at the time she assisted him in evading arrest after the fact, she believed her co-accused’s conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances as she believed he perceived them – where the co-accused and eyewitnesses did not see the deceased threaten the Applicant with a gun on the street – where gun found in close proximity to site where the deceased was struck with the samurai sword
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – consciousness of guilt reasoning – where Crown relied on post-offence conduct as part of a circumstantial case as to co-accused’s state of mind at the time of the sword strike rather than as an implied admission or independent evidence of guilt – where Applicant and co-accused fled the scene, disposed of various items from the co-accused’s house and concealed the bloodied samurai sword – where no objection raised or direction sought by Applicant’s trial counsel

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 347, 350, 418-419, 421
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (QLD)
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15

Cases Cited:
AC v R [2023] NSWCCA 133
Cavanagh v R; McIvor v R; O’Keefe v R [2023] NSWCCA 164
Coghlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69
Libke v the Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Blake Davis [2021] NSWSC 235
R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1800
R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 493
R v Hannah Quinn (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 494
R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562
R v Stone [1981] VR 737
R v Tevendale [1955] VLR 95
R v Valencia Valencia [2023] NSWSC 163
Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016)…

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 Quinn v The King

Details

AGLC: Quinn v The King [2023] NSWCCA 229
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 229
Decision Date: 08 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Quinn v The King involves the applicant who was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence. The applicant was found to have assisted her co-accused in evading arrest following the killing of the deceased. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the applicant sought to overturn her conviction on the basis that it was unreasonable and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the Crown had successfully excluded the reasonable possibility that the applicant believed her co-accused was acting in self-defence when she assisted him, and whether the trial court correctly considered the evidence of post-offence conduct in the context of the applicant’s state of mind. Specifically, the court examined whether the applicant could have reasonably believed that her co-accused perceived a threat from the deceased, despite the co-accused and eyewitnesses not seeing any such threat. Additionally, the court evaluated the Crown’s use of the applicant’s post-offence conduct as circumstantial evidence of the co-accused's state of mind at the time of the offence, rather than as an admission of guilt or independent evidence.

In its reasoning, the High Court determined that the applicant's conviction was not unreasonable. The court found that the trial judge adequately considered the evidence and was correct in his assessment that the applicant could not have reasonably believed her co-accused perceived a threat from the deceased. Furthermore, the court held that the Crown’s use of the post-offence conduct did not prejudice the applicant, as no objection was raised by her trial counsel, and no direction was sought regarding the purpose for which the evidence could be used. The court concluded that the evidence sufficiently supported the applicant’s conviction, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The conviction of the applicant as an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence was upheld.

Orders