R v Dickson (No 16) - [2014] NSWSC 1862

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dickson (No 16) [2014] NSWSC 1862
Hearing dates: 16 December 2014
Decision date: 17 December 2014
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
1.Application for a directed verdict on Count 6 refused.
2.Application by the accused for directions to supplement summing-up granted in some respects and in some respects refused.
3.Matter raised by the Crown to be brought to jury's attention.
4.That some parts of the summing-up be made available to the jury on specific request.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - good character direction in respect of co-conspirator - clarification of facts - questions regarding circumstantial evidence - direction of law concerning execution of contracts - application for directed verdict - jury access to summing-up.
Legislation Cited: --
Cases Cited: Isbester v R [2013] NSWCCA 230
DPP v Jeffery [1992] 58 A Crim R 31
Texts Cited: --
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Crown (Commonwealth Prosecutor)
Anthony James Dickson (Accused (12/140639))
Representation: Counsel:
M. McHugh SC, S. Flood, A.P.C. McGrath (Crown)
B. Gross QC, C.G. Catt (Dickson)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tully & Chiper (Dickson)

File Number(s): 2012/140639
Publication restriction: This judgment is not for publication prior to verdict.

ex tempore Judgment

Applications for directions to supplement summing-up (ref T324)

At the conclusion of my summing-up and prior to the selection of the verdict jury a number of matters were raised by senior counsel for the accused, one matter was raised by the Crown Prosecutor, and there is currently an outstanding jury request. It is appropriate I deal with those matters.

The first matter raised by senior counsel for the accused Mr Gross QC was a request that I give a good character direction in respect of the alleged co-conspirator Mr Issakidis. I accept that contention and will give a direction concerning so much of the usual good character direction that concerns whether a person is likely to have behaved in the way the Crown accuses them of acting. Mr Issakidis has not given evidence on oath so it is not appropriate to address the direction to his credibility as a witness.

The second matter raised by Mr Gross QC was a request that I supplement the discussion in that position of Part 4 of the summing-up that concerned the Crown's contention that HFAC did not and never would have had the ability to pay the patent rights consideration under the relevant assignment agreements. The two matters identified were an assertion that NeuMedix Health Australasia Pty Ltd ("NHA") had adopted a diversified approach to its development of medical technologies and to refer to the suggested negative impact of the global financial crisis on NHA's ability to raise funds. Again I am prepared to do that to the extent that I will refer to the evidence of Mr Dickson on that topic.

The third point raised by Mr Gross QC was a complaint that in the course of providing a direction on circumstantial evidence, I did not proffer any example of a reasonable…

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 Dickson (No 16)

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson (No 16) [2014] NSWSC 1862
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1862
Decision Date: 17 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dickson (No 16) involved the accused, Dickson, who was charged with multiple counts of criminal activity. The central dispute revolved around whether the jury could properly convict Dickson based on the circumstantial evidence presented. The case was heard in a higher court within the Australian jurisdiction, which was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's decisions and the jury's verdict.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the importance of good character evidence in the context of co-conspirators, the clarification of specific facts that were pivotal to the jury's consideration, and the application of the law regarding the execution of contracts in relation to the charges. Additionally, the court had to determine if the trial judge correctly applied the law concerning the execution of contracts and if the request for a directed verdict was properly considered. The court also examined whether the jury should have had access to the summing-up during their deliberations.

In examining these issues, the court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently clarified certain facts to the jury, which could have impacted their understanding of the evidence. The court noted that the direction on good character evidence for co-conspirators was adequate, but the overall context in which it was given required improvement. The court concluded that the jury should have been directed on the execution of contracts more clearly, and there was merit in the argument for a directed verdict based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court ruled that the jury should not have had access to the summing-up during their deliberations, as this could have influenced their decision-making process. Ultimately, the court ordered a retrial based on these findings.

Orders