R v Bucca; R v Castle - [2018] SASCFC 42

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BUCCA; R v CASTLE
[2018] SASCFC 42
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Stanley, The Honourable Justice Nicholson and The Honourable Auxiliary Justice Rice)
31 May 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY - RE-EXAMINATION OR EVIDENCE TO RESTORE CREDIT
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
The appellants were convicted of murder following a trial by jury. This was their second trial for the charge of murder after an appeal against their convictions was allowed.
On the prosecution case, the deceased was fatally shot by Mr Bucca on 3 February 2013. The deceased was the former partner of Ms Castle, who by then was in a relationship with Mr Bucca. Through a series of text messages, Ms Castle lured the deceased to her car at a car wash at Parafield. It was known to Ms Castle that Mr Bucca was concealed in the rear of the car and that he might use a gun to kill the deceased. The deceased entered the car and sat in the passenger’s seat. Shortly after, the deceased attempted to alight from the passenger’s seat. Three shots were fired at the deceased, the last of which was fatal.
At trial the prosecution case against Ms Castle was dependent on her having formed a plan with Mr Bucca, and on Mr Bucca being the shooter. The defence case was that the Mr Bucca was not present and that another person was in the car with Ms Castle and fatally shot the deceased. The trial judge directed the jury they could not convict Ms Castle unless they found Mr Bucca guilty of murder.
The daughter of a friend of Mr Bucca gave evidence to the effect that Mr Bucca had previously shown her father guns while she was present. To rebut an inference of recent invention arising in her cross-examination, the trial judge permitted the prosecution to re-examine her with reference to a statement she gave to police before the first trial.
The appellants appeal the convictions to this Court.
Held (by the Court): appeal dismissed.
1. Properly understood, the direction that the jury could not convict Ms Castle unless they found Mr Bucca guilty of murder did not present a risk that the jury might wrongly convict Mr Bucca in order to convict Ms Castle (at [77]-[78], [81], [106]-[107], [110]).
2. The inference that Ms Pascoe had engaged in recent invention was available to the jury and the judge was correct to permit the re-examination as to the fact of and timing of the earlier police statement (at [143], [146]-[147]).
3. The directions concerning Ms Pascoe’s evidence sufficiently explained to the jury the correct manner by which it had to assess the credibility and reliability of her evidence. There was no risk…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Bucca; R v Castle and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] SASCFC 42
Decision Date: 31 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, R v Bucca and R v Castle, appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland against their convictions. The central dispute concerned alleged misdirections and non-directions by the trial judge regarding the evidence of credibility and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the issue of restoring credit to a witness after their credit had been challenged, and whether the verdicts reached by the jury were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial.

The Court granted permission to appeal on specific grounds for both Mr Bucca and Ms Castle, indicating that there were arguable points of law. However, after considering the arguments, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeals of both Mr Bucca and Ms Castle on all grounds. This suggests that while some grounds for appeal were permitted to be argued, the Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's directions or in the jury's verdicts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

We grant permission to appeal on this ground but dismiss the ground of appeal. Conclusion We grant permission to appeal on grounds one, two and three of Mr Bucca’s appeal, and ground five of Ms Castle’s appeal. We dismiss Mr Bucca’s appeal on all grounds. We dismiss Ms Castle’s appeal on all grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.