R v Douglass (No 1) - [2022] NSWSC 1287

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Douglass (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1287
Hearing dates: 22 August – 9 September 2022
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
The accused is found guilty of murder.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – single count of murder – where Crown case was that the accused entered the deceased’s house with a co-accused to steal money and the deceased was stabbed in the course of that enterprise – where accused made multiple admissions to participation in the killing – where co-accused was a witness for the prosecution – whether elements of murder established on basis that accused stabbed the deceased – whether elements of murder established on basis of extended joint criminal enterprise – whether accused acted in defence of another – reasons for verdict

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 32, 108C

Cases Cited:
Douglass v R [2020] NSWCCA 284
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; [1995] HCA 37

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex
Ammie Douglass (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Pincott (Crown)
Mr T Jones (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/197051
Publication restriction: Pseudonyms used to reflect non-publication orders made on 27 November 2018; 3 August 2022; and 26 September 2022

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The accused, Ammie Douglass, is charged that between 6 August 2016 and 12 August 2016, at Lithgow, she murdered Christopher Whiteley (“the deceased”). The trial commenced on 22 August 2022 as a trial by judge alone, pursuant to s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. The Crown case was closed on 7 September 2022. A case for the defence was presented the same day. The parties made their closing addresses on 9 September 2022, assisted by written submissions. I reserved my verdict judgment until 26 September 2022.

An overview of the Crown case

The Crown case, briefly stated, is that on the evening of 7 August 2016, the accused and her then partner, who I will refer to as AS, [1] entered the deceased’s semi-detached house on Main Street, Lithgow (“the Main Street house”) with the intention of stealing money that they believed to be there. The deceased was 69 years old, the accused was aged 26 and AS was aged 21. The accused and AS were each armed with a knife and the accused wore a balaclava and gloves. They entered the rear yard of the property via a laneway (“the laneway”) and gained access to the house through the back doorway, which did not have a door affixed to it. The deceased was watching television in the lounge room. He heard AS approaching him inside the house and confronted him. During the struggle, AS and the accused stabbed the deceased, who collapsed to…

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 Douglass (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Douglass (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1287
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1287
Decision Date: 26 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was charged with the murder of the deceased. The respondent was alleged to have entered the deceased's house with a co-accused with the intent to steal money. The deceased was stabbed in the course of that enterprise. The respondent made multiple admissions to the police about his participation in the killing. The co-accused was a witness for the prosecution. The case was heard by a judge alone in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent claimed that he was acting in defence of another and that the elements of murder were not established.

The court was required to determine whether the elements of murder were established on the basis that the respondent stabbed the deceased, and whether they were established on the basis of an extended joint criminal enterprise. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent was acting in defence of another. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had established the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the prosecution had not established the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the respondent had acted in defence of another. The court found that the respondent had acted to prevent or terminate an unlawful attack on his co-accused by the deceased. The court found that the respondent's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the respondent had not acted with the necessary intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The court found that the elements of murder were not established on the basis of an extended joint criminal enterprise. The court found that the respondent's actions were not part of a joint criminal enterprise.

The court acquitted the respondent of the charge of murder. The court found that the respondent had acted in defence of another and that the elements of murder were not established.

Orders