R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) - [2020] NSWSC 1800

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1800
Hearing dates: 9 December 2020
Date of orders: 11 December 2020
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
That the jury be directed to enter a verdict of not guilty against Ms Quinn for count 1 on the indictment (murder).

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – joint criminal enterprise – self-defence – excessive self-defence – co-accused – directed verdict – whether there is no evidence upon which a jury could convict – listening device material – eyewitness accounts – accused’s account in ERISP – competing inferences

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51
JMR v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
R v Bilick and Starke (1984) 36 SASR 322; 11 A Crim R 452
Regina v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31
Regina v XHR [2012] NSWCCA 247

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Blake Davis (Accused)
Hannah Quinn (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Taylor (Crown)
Ms M Cunneen SC (Accused Davis)
Mr T Hughes (Accused Quinn)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Accused Davis)
Korn MacDougall Legal (Accused Quinn)

File Number(s): 2018/249752; 2018/248991

Judgment

Background

On 16 November 2020, Hannah Quinn pleaded not guilty to a charge that she murdered Jett McKee. She stands trial with her co-accused, Blake Davis. Mr Davis admits doing the act with caused the death of Jett McKee on 10 August 2018, namely, striking him to the head with a samurai sword. The Crown brings a case for murder against Ms Quinn on the basis of principles of extended joint criminal enterprise.
At the close of the Crown case against Ms Quinn on Wednesday 9 December 2020, Mr Hughes of counsel, appearing for Ms Quinn, made an application for a directed verdict of not guilty in relation to the charge of murder against Ms Quinn.
Mr Hughes submitted that there was a defect in the evidence in the Crown case against Ms Quinn such that, taken at its highest, it could not sustain a verdict of guilty. The defect was that there is no evidence capable of establishing that Ms Quinn ever formed a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Davis to inflict some form of injury on the deceased.
On 10 December 2020, I directed the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty for Ms Quinn on the count of murder. These are my reasons for doing so.

Relevant principles

The relevant principles are well settled. In Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51 the High Court observed at 212 that there was:

"... no doubt that it is a trial judge's duty to direct [a verdict of acquittal] if the evidence cannot sustain a guilty verdict or, as is commonly said, if there is no evidence upon…

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 Davis and Quinn (No 4) 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: [2020] NSWSC 1800
Decision Date: 14 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) involved the prosecution of two individuals, Davis and Quinn, on charges of murder. The dispute centered on the events that led to the death of the victim during a confrontation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder against both Davis and Quinn. Key issues included the applicability of self-defence, whether the actions of the accused constituted excessive self-defence, and the reliability of various pieces of evidence such as a listening device, eyewitness accounts, and the accused's statements in the emergency response interview statement process (ERISP).

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. The primary question was whether there was enough evidence for a jury to find the accused guilty of murder. This involved assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence, including the listening device material, eyewitness accounts, and the statements made by the accused during their ERISP. The court also had to determine if the defence of self-defence, or excessive self-defence, was applicable. Another critical issue was the impact of the co-accused's evidence on the accused's case and whether it provided a sufficient basis for a directed verdict.

The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder in relation to Davis. It found that the listening device material and the accused's account in the ERISP, when considered alongside the eyewitness accounts, created competing inferences that undermined the prosecution's case. The court accepted that the accused acted in self-defence, albeit potentially excessive, but held that the evidence did not support a finding that the accused's actions were so extreme as to constitute murder. Consequently, the court directed a verdict of acquittal in favour of Davis. The court did not direct a verdict in relation to Quinn, leaving the case against him to proceed to a jury.

Orders