Appeal against conviction allowed, verdict of guilty set aside, new trial ordered
CATCHWORDS:
appeal against conviction - leave to appeal against sentence - threatening to inflict actual bodily harm by means of an offensive weapon with intent to have sexual intercourse - admission of evidence of flight - directions regarding consciousness of guilt - lies - the proviso to s6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crown - Respondent Daryl Norman Stanley Cook - Appellant
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 60166/03
COUNSEL:
B Knox SC - Crown CB Craigie SC - Appellant
SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown M Wells - Appellant
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
01/31/0202
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Mahoney ADCJ
60166/03
IPP JA SIMPSON J ADAMS J
Friday 12 March 2004
REGINA v Daryl Norman Stanley COOK
Judgment
1 IPP JA: I agree with Simpson J.
2 SIMPSON J: On 19 July 2002, following a two week trial by jury in the District Court in Sydney, the appellant was convicted on an indictment which charged him with the offence of threatening to inflict actual bodily harm by means of an offensive weapon with intent to have sexual intercourse, a charge brought under s61K(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 20 November 2002 he was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years with a non-parole period of 9 years, to commence on 12 July 2001. The appellant appeals against conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.
the Crown case
3 The Crown case was that on the evening of 5 April 2001, the complainant, a female then aged seventeen, went with a group of friends to various locations in and around Port Macquarie. During the course of the evening they consumed some alcohol. At about 12.30 am on the morning of 6 April the complainant was with friends in front of a kebab shop in the town. The appellant was present in the vicinity, although not part of the complainant’s group. The complainant was introduced to him by an employee of the kebab shop,…
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 Cook
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 52
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Cook involved the appellant, who was convicted of several serious criminal offences, including threatening to inflict actual bodily harm by means of an offensive weapon with intent to have sexual intercourse, and was subsequently sentenced. The appellant appealed against both the conviction and the sentence. The court was tasked with determining whether the conviction was safe and whether the sentence was appropriate, and it was also required to consider the admissibility of evidence pertaining to flight, directions regarding consciousness of guilt, and the appellant's lies.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and providing certain directions, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the evidence of flight, consciousness of guilt, and the appellant's lies were properly admitted and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding these matters were correct. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it should grant leave to appeal against the sentence.
The court determined that the conviction was safe and that the evidence was sufficient to support it. Regarding the admission of evidence of flight, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting this evidence, as it was relevant to the appellant's consciousness of guilt. The court also concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate. Concerning the sentence, the court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. However, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence due to the nature of the offences and the need for consistency in sentencing.
The court ordered that the conviction be upheld but granted leave to appeal against the sentence. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that convictions are supported by sufficient evidence, and that the admission of evidence and directions to the jury are correctly handled. Additionally, it underscores the need for careful consideration of sentencing in serious criminal cases.