Legal Research
Cases
R v Andrews

R v Andrews

Case [2003] NSWCCA 7 6 February 2003

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Murder

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v ANDREWS [2003] NSWCCA 7

HEARING DATE(S): 23 October 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hidden J at 46

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed.

PARTIES :
Regina
Stephen John ANDREWS

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60121 of 2000

COUNSEL: Crown: W Dawe QC
Appellant: PR Boulten

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: David H Cohen & Co

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70031/98

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ireland J

- 15 -

No: 60121/00

HEYDON JA
HULME J
HIDDEN J

R v Stephen john ANDREWS

Judgment

1 HEYDON JA: I agree with Hulme J that it is not necessary to decide the somewhat difficult issues discussed in [4]-[16], because even if the trial judge erred in one or more of the respects which the appellant alleged, the proviso should be applied for the reasons given by Hulme J. I also agree with Hulme J’s observations about sentence, and with his proposed orders.

2 HULME J: On 30 September 1999 the Appellant, Stephen John Andrews, was convicted by a jury of the murder of his de facto wife, Julie Wells Andrews. On 22 February 2000 he was sentenced by Ireland J to imprisonment for a period of 21 years including a minimum term of 16 years both of which periods commenced on 24 December 1997, the date of her death and his arrest.

3 At the Appellant’s trial there was no dispute that he had killed his wife by firing shots from a .22 calibre rifle. Two bullets entered her brain and another two bullets were fired. In issue was the question of his intent. It was argued that in light of, inter alia, evidence of the Appellant’s ingestion of alcohol and a drug Zoloft, and expert evidence as to their effect, the jury could not be satisfied that at the relevant time the Appellant had an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm. The Crown sought to pray in aid of its case, evidence of the Appellant’s movements on the night and what it describes as evidence of motive, that being jealousy on the part of the Appellant.

4 Evidence falling within this latter category, and to which exception is taken in the appeal, consisted of the following:-

(i) Evidence from Alison Andrews, a daughter of the Appellant and deceased who said that on the night of 2 November 1997, at a wedding, another man showed an interest in the deceased, the Appellant “got angry” and a fight occurred between the Appellant and that man which was broken up by Mr Withers. The deceased’s mother, Mrs Hawken, gave evidence of having been told by the deceased that on that occasion the deceased started a fight about her.

(ii) A Mark Munro gave evidence of social contact with the deceased in 1994 at a time when she and the Appellant were separated. Some months, and it may have been a substantial…

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 Andrews

Details

AGLC: R v Andrews [2003] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 6 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Andrews, the appellant, Stephen John Andrews, was convicted of the murder of his de facto wife, Julie Wells Andrews. The central issue in the appeal was the admissibility of certain evidence related to the appellant's prior conduct, which the defence argued was irrelevant and prejudicial tendency evidence. The court held that the evidence, which included instances of the appellant's jealousy and violent tendencies, was admissible as it pertained to the relationship between the appellant and the deceased and was relevant to the motive of the crime. Despite the appellant's argument that the evidence did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the Evidence Act, the court found that the overwhelming nature of the evidence against the appellant meant that any error in admitting the evidence was harmless.

The court also considered the appellant's appeal against his sentence, which was 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive given his age, lack of criminal history, and the mitigating circumstances of the case. While acknowledging these factors, the court found that the severity of the crime, the degree of planning, and the brutal nature of the murder justified the sentence imposed. The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was within the legitimate bounds of the sentencing judge's discretion.

Orders