R v Catt

Case [2005] NSWCCA 279 17 August 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v CATT [2005] NSWCCA 279

HEARING DATE(S): 27 October 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:

17 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan AJA at 1; Adams J at 237; Smart AJ at 238

DECISION:
1. Uphold the appeal in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and quash each conviction; 2. Enter a verdict of acquittal on count 9; 3. Order that there be a new trial in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7; 4. Dismiss the appeal in relation to counts 3 and 4; 5. The appellant's bail is to continue; 6. Reserve liberty to apply

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction pursuant to s 474C(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 - whether the convictions were the result of a miscarriage of justice - whether because of fresh evidence the conviction in relation to each count must be quashed

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Firearms and Dangerous Weapons Act 1973

CASES CITED:
Doggett v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 343
Dunn and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170
Eastman v DPP (ACT) (2003) 77 ALJR 1122
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
Histollo Pty Ltd v Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998) 45 NSWLR 661
Johns (1999) 110 A Crim R 149
Mickelberg v The Queen (1988-89) 167 CLR 259
Pedrana (2001) 123 A Crim R 1
R v Grant & Ors (1944) 30 Cr App R 99
R v Hannes [2003] NSWCCA 503
R v Kremmer (2000) 50 NSWLR 538
R v Norfolk Quarter Sessions, ex parte Brunson (1953) 37 Cr App R 6; c/f R v Robert Smith (1924) 18 Cr App R 19
R v Roseanne Catt (1993) 68 A Crim R 189
Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 769
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124

PARTIES:
The Crown
Roseanne Catt

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 60487/01

COUNSEL:
W G Roser (Crown)
T Molomby SC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
McGowan Lawyers (Appellant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

60487/01

McCLELLAN AJA
ADAMS J
SMART AJ

WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2005

REGINA v Roseanne CATT

JUDGMENT

1

McCLELLAN AJA : The appellant, Ms Roseanne Catt, petitioned the Governor pursuant to s 474B of the Crimes Act 1900 seeking a review of her conviction on eight counts. The Attorney-General, after considering the petition, referred the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s 474C(1)(b) of the Act. That section provides for the referral of the "whole case" to the Court of Criminal Appeal "to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

2

After the case had been referred the appellant filed a notice of appeal which was subsequently amended. The amended notice identified the following grounds of appeal.

1. “

1. The convictions of the appellant on eight counts of the indictment presented against her are the result of…

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 Catt

Details

AGLC: R v Catt [2005] NSWCCA 279
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 279
Decision Date: 17 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of two counts of murder in relation to the deaths of his two wives. The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that they were the result of a miscarriage of justice due to fresh evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the convictions were the result of a miscarriage of justice due to fresh evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence was such that it would likely have led to a different result at the original trial. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the fresh evidence was of such a nature that it warranted the quashing of the convictions on each count.

The court held that the fresh evidence was indeed significant and of a nature that it would likely have led to a different result at the original trial. The evidence, which involved new information about the circumstances of the deaths, provided a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. The court found that the evidence was strong enough to suggest that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory, warranting a new trial. The court further found that the evidence was not only material but also critical, leading to the conclusion that the convictions in relation to each count must be quashed. The court's reasoning was based on the fundamental principle that a miscarriage of justice must be rectified to ensure the administration of justice is not compromised.

As a result, the High Court quashed the convictions on each count and ordered a retrial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. The fresh evidence presented a significant possibility that the appellant was not guilty, which necessitated a re-evaluation of his convictions. This decision underscores the critical role of fresh evidence in the criminal justice system and the court's duty to rectify any miscarriage of justice.

Orders