Legal Research
Cases
R v Crowther-Wilkinson

R v Crowther-Wilkinson

Case [2004] NSWCCA 249 27 July 2004

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Jury Instructions

Presumption of Innocence

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Crowther-Wilkinson [2004] NSWCCA 249

HEARING DATE(S): 12/7/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Dowd J at 232; Kirby J at 233

DECISION: 1. Appeal Dismissed; 2. Conviction and Sentence below confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - murder - plea of not guilty - co accused jointly indicted - whether verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence - whether a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had planned the murder of the deceased - whether the trial miscarried by reason of the publication on the Internet, both before and during the trial, of two interlocutory judgments.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - s 108,

CASES CITED: Crofts v The Queen (1986) 186 CLR 427 at 432
Glennon v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 592 at 603
Hinch v Attorney General (Vic) (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 15
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 497
Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94 at 99
R v Bell NSWCCA 8 October 1998
R v Crowther-Wilkinson and Cowie [2003] NSWSC 44
R v Crowther-Wilkinson and Cowie [2003] NSWSC 226
R v Crowther-Wilkinson and Cowie [2002] NSWSC 1207
R v Loguancio (2000) 1 VR 235
R v Yuill (1993) 69 A Crim R 450
R v Zaiter [2004] NSWCCA 35
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

PARTIES :
Regina
Simon Crowther-Wilkinson

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60129/04

COUNSEL: M C Grogan (Crown)
P Byrne SC with H Dhanj (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
S E O'Connor (Legal Aid)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70096/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hidden J

60129/04

WOOD CJ AT CL

DOWD J
KIRBY J

Regina v Simon Crowther-Wilkinson

On 28 March 2003 the appellant, Simon Crowther-Wilkinson, was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years for murder. His co-accused, James Cowie was found not guilty. He appeals against this conviction but not against the sentence.

The appellant had been a silent partner in a partnership with the deceased in a security company, Excell Security Pty Limited (“Excell”). The deceased’s body was found floating in the Hawkesbury River wrapped in plastic, metal 3/8 inch steel galvanised chains and 12 mm D-shackles. The Crown case was that he had been shot once in the back of the head, consistent with a .22 calibre bullet having been fired by either the appellant or James Cowie, with the other present and assisting or encouraging the killer. The deceased’s body had then been transported to the Hawkesbury River and dumped from a small aluminium boat.

Ground 1 – Verdict Unreasonable

Held: The Crown relied on 40 strands in a circumstantial case. The matters were all before the jury…

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 Crowther-Wilkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Crowther-Wilkinson [2004] NSWCCA 249
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 249
Decision Date: 27 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the appellant, Crowther-Wilkinson, appealed against his conviction for the murder of a deceased person. The case involved a plea of not guilty, and the appellant was jointly indicted with co-accused. The central issues for the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the trial judge's failure to direct the jury correctly. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial judge should have instructed the jury that they could only convict the appellant if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had planned the murder. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial was compromised due to the publication on the internet of two interlocutory judgments before and during the trial.

The court's reasoning focused on the legal principles governing jury directions and the impact of extraneous information on the trial process. The court noted that the trial judge's direction to the jury did not explicitly state that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant planned the murder. The court considered whether this omission rendered the verdict unreasonable and whether it amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court assessed the effect of the published interlocutory judgments on the impartiality of the jury, considering whether such publications could have influenced the jury's decision-making process.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, and no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The court found that the trial judge's direction, while not perfect, was sufficient for the jury to reach a fair verdict. The court also held that the publication of the interlocutory judgments did not prejudice the trial to the extent that it warranted a new trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the conviction for murder was upheld. The appellant remained convicted as previously determined by the lower court.

Orders