CK Maxwell QC/GE Smith - Crown P Byrne SC/SJ Odgers - Appellant
SOLICITORS:
R Gray - Crown Murphy's Lawyers Inc - Appellant
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law and procedure - evidence within principles in O'Leary v The King - evidence of consciousness of guilt - lies - accessorial liability - whether verdict unreasonable and cannot be supported
DECISION:
Appeal allowed
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60016/99 60079/99
SPIGELMAN CJ JAMES J BELL J
Friday 23 July 1999
REGINA v Richard ADAM JUDGMENT
1 THE COURT: On 24 December 1998 after a trial conducted in the Supreme Court before Wood CJ at CL and a jury Richard Adam was found guilty of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on David Carty, an off-duty police officer, on 18 April 1997. On 22 February 1999 Wood CJ at CL sentenced Richard Adam to a sentence of penal servitude for two years eight months, consisting of a minimum term of two years commencing on 24 December 1998 and an additional term of eight months. After being arrested on 19 July 1997, Richard Adam had been released on bail on 21 July 1997 and had remained at liberty until the jury returned its verdict of guilty. Richard Adam (who we will henceforth refer to as “the appellant”) appealed against the conviction and sentence imposed by Wood CJ at CL. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant.
2 At the trial the appellant had been indicted on charges of murdering David Carty and of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on David Carty with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. The jury found the appellant not guilty of these charges and also declined to find the appellant guilty of the manslaughter of David Carty.
3 The appellant stood trial with a co-accused, his brother Gilbert Adam. The jury found Gilbert Adam guilty of the murder of David Carty. Wood CJ at CL sentenced Gilbert Adam to a sentence of penal servitude of twenty-eight years, consisting of a minimum term of twenty-one years commencing on 17 July 1997 and an additional term of seven years. Gilbert Adam had been continuously in custody since being arrested on 17 July 1997. Gilbert Adam appealed against his conviction and sentence and the appeals of the appellant and Gilbert Adam were listed for hearing together by the same Bench of this Court. The Court heard the appeals involving Richard Adam first, reserving its decision, and then heard the appeals involving Gilbert Adam.
Crown Case
4 The basic facts according to the Crown case against 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 R v Adam
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 189
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of the Crown versus Adam was heard, where the defendant was charged with accessorial liability in relation to a serious crime. The Crown sought to establish the defendant's involvement through evidence of his untruths and behaviour indicative of consciousness of guilt. The trial court found the defendant guilty, but the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether this verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.
The appeal raised several legal issues. Firstly, whether the evidence of lies and other conduct demonstrating consciousness of guilt was admissible and sufficient to establish the defendant's involvement as an accessory. Secondly, whether the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on such evidence. Thirdly, whether the verdict of guilt was unreasonable and incapable of being supported by the evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that evidence of lies and other behaviour indicative of consciousness of guilt could be relevant and admissible in proving accessorial liability, provided it was properly contextualised and not used in isolation. The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted and weighed the evidence. The lies and actions of the defendant, when considered alongside other evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find the defendant guilty. The Court of Appeal concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original verdict of the trial court was upheld. The defendant's conviction for accessorial liability was maintained, affirming the trial judge's decision to admit and consider evidence of consciousness of guilt in reaching the verdict.