R v Bolus - [2003] NSWSC 658

CITATION: R v Bolus and Others [2003] NSWSC 658 revised - 19/08/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 04/02/03 - 10/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: Application at the end of the Crown case to direct the jury to acquit each of the accused on the basis that the evidence led by the Crown at its highest proved the existence of two conspiracies and not one as alleged in the indictment is refused.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Conspiracy - Defence of multiple conspiracies - whether there should be a verdict by direction.

CASES CITED: Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
R v Louden (1995) 37 NSWLR 683
Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317
R v Cotroni (1979) 45 CCC (2d)
R v Handleman (1980) 57 CCC (2d) 242

PARTIES :
Regina v James Herbert Bolus, Regina v Dominic Darrington Brokenshire, Regina v Bruce Cornwell, Regina v David Paul Dicecco, Regina v Juan Guillermo Diez-Orozco, Regina v Vincent Francis, Regina v John Lawrence, Regina v Daniel Patrick McDougall, Regina v David George Norris

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70061/02, 70066/02, 70223/02, 70219/02, 70221/02, 70225/02, 70220/02, 70224/02, 70222/02

COUNSEL: P. Roberts SC with I. Bourke - Crown
S. Kluss - Accused Bolus
G. Whitehead - Accused Brokenshire
P. Boulten with P. Williams - Accused Cornwell
P. Hogan - Accused Dicecco
P. Young - Accused Diez-Orozco
R. Cooley - Accused Francis
C. Waterstreet - Accused Lawrence
B. Rigg - Accused McDougall
C. Loukas - Accused Norris

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP - Crown
Graham W. Howe & Co., Solicitors - Accused Bolus
King's Lawyers - Accused Brokenshire
Paul Hardin, Solicitor - Accused Cornwell
Peter Ash, Solicitor - Accused Dicecco
Neil J. O'Connor & Assoc., Solicitors - Accused Diez-Orozco
Morgan Ardina Solicitors - Accused Francis
Kings Lawyers - Accused Lawrence
Barry Watterson, Solicitor - Accused McDougall
Rigelsford Jenson & Co., Solicitors - Accused Norris

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 7 MAY 2003

70061/02 R v James Herbert BOLUS
70066/02 R v Dominic Darrington BROKENSHIRE
70223/02 R v Richard Bruce CORNWELL
70219/02 R v David Paul DICECCO
70221/02 R v Juan Guillermo DIEZ-OROZCO
70225/02 R v Vincent FRANCIS
70220/02 R v John LAWRENCE
70224/02 R v Daniel Patrick McDOUGALL
70222/02 R v David George NORRIS
JUDGMENT

1 HOWIE J: At the conclusion of the Crown case an application was made on behalf of all of the accused that I should direct the jury to acquit each of them. The basis of that submission was a contention that the evidence led by the Crown at its highest proved the existence of two conspiracies and not the single conspiracy alleged in the indictment. At the conclusion of the argument I indicated that the application was refused and I would give reasons later. These are those reasons. During the course of this judgment any facts or allegations referred to are based upon allegations in the Crown case.

2 There was a further and separate…

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 Bolus

Details

AGLC: R v Bolus [2003] NSWSC 658
Case: [2003] NSWSC 658
Decision Date: 7 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bolus, the defendant was involved in a dispute with the Crown relating to criminal activities involving conspiracy. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of the defence of multiple conspiracies and whether a verdict should be directed in the case. The court was tasked with examining the arguments presented by both parties and making a determination on the matter.

The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on the defence of multiple conspiracies and whether it was applicable in the circumstances presented. The court needed to consider the evidence and arguments put forth by the defence and determine whether the defence of multiple conspiracies was a valid legal defence in this instance. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a verdict should be directed in the case, based on the evidence presented.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the defence of multiple conspiracies was not applicable in the circumstances presented. The court found that the defendant's actions were part of a single conspiracy, rather than multiple conspiracies, and that the defence of multiple conspiracies was therefore not valid. The court also found that a verdict should not be directed in the case, as there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to make a determination on the matter. The court's reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and legal principles involved.

Based on the court's findings, the defendant was found guilty of the charges brought against him. The court's decision provides guidance on the application of the defence of multiple conspiracies and the circumstances in which a verdict may be directed. The final orders of the court reflect the outcome of the case and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision.

Orders