Legal Research
Cases
R v Dudko

R v Dudko

Case [2002] NSWCCA 336 20 August 2002

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 132 A Crim R 371

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v DUDKO [2002] NSWCCA 336

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60497/01

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (Respondent)
Lucy Dudko (Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 130; Blanch AJ at 131

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0680

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Morgan DCJ

COUNSEL :
Appellant:
In Person (Conviction)
S J Odgers SC (Sentence)
Crown: P E Barrett

SOLICITORS:
Appellant:
David Giddy & Associates (Sentence)
Crown: S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - rescue of prisoner, hijack, detain for advantage - appeal against conviction - whether jury influenced by pre-trial media coverage - whether sufficient evidence for reasonable conviction - whether certain evidence correctly admitted - whether directions to jury adequate - CRIMINAL LAW - possession of firearms - appeal against conviction - whether co-offender required to testify - where issue was exclusive possession by co-offender - whether trial judge removed questions of fact from jury's consideration - CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - whether offender doubly punished - where use of force was element of two offences - whether parity with co-offender - comparison where co-offender sentenced for additional offences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Correctional Services Act 1952
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Firearms Act 1996

CASES CITED:
Environmental Protection Authority v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502
Glennon v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 592
Long v R [2002] QSC 54
Murphy v The Queen (1988) 167 CLR 94
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
Queen v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 363
R v Bell, NSWCCA, 8 October 1998 (unreported)
R v D'Arcy [2001] QCA 325
R v Killick [2002] NSWCCA 1
R v Milat, NSWCCA, 26 February 1998 (unreported)
R v VPH, NSWCCA, 4 March 1994 (unreported)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60497/01

SPIGELMAN CJ
SIMPSON J
BLANCH AJ
Tuesday 20 August 2002

REGINA v Lucy DUDKO

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: On 25 March 1999, John Reginald Killick was an inmate of Silverwater Gaol. He escaped from that gaol by helicopter on that day. The helicopter had been flown to the gaol by a pilot who was forced to land by a woman. The principal issue in the trial was whether or not the Appellant was that woman. When Killick was subsequently apprehended he was in the company of the Appellant. Certain pistols were found on that occasion and some of the charges relate to that discovery.

2 The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the five counts with which she was charged. The jury convicted her on all counts. The counts were:

Count 1: Rescue inmate in lawful custody by force contrary to s32 of the Correctional Services Act 1952 .

Court 2: Assault member of crew of an aircraft contrary to s206(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 3: Detain…

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 Dudko

Details

AGLC: R v Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 336
Decision Date: 20 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the convictions and sentences of the respondents, Dudko and others, for their involvement in a complex criminal enterprise that included the rescue of a prisoner, the hijacking of a vehicle, and the subsequent detention of individuals for advantage. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondents challenged their convictions and sentences on various grounds, including the influence of pre-trial media coverage on the jury, the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence, and the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury. The appeal also addressed issues concerning the possession of firearms and the necessity of co-offender testimony in establishing exclusive possession. Additionally, the respondents contended that their sentences were excessive, particularly in light of the fact that their co-offenders were sentenced for additional offences.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the jury's verdict was tainted by pre-trial media coverage, whether there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable conviction, and whether certain evidence was correctly admitted and the jury adequately directed. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the respondents' possession of firearms was adequately established, and whether it was necessary for a co-offender to testify to prove exclusive possession. Lastly, the appeal questioned whether the sentences imposed were appropriate, particularly in relation to the principle of double jeopardy and whether the respondents were treated fairly in comparison to their co-offenders.

The High Court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the trial was conducted fairly and without prejudice to the respondents. The court found that the jury was not influenced by pre-trial media coverage and that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable conviction. The court also determined that the evidence in question was properly admitted and that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. Regarding the possession of firearms, the court held that the respondents' possession was sufficiently established and that it was not necessary for a co-offender to testify to prove exclusive possession. Finally, the court assessed the sentences and found that the respondents were not doubly punished and that their sentences were commensurate with those of their co-offenders, taking into account the additional offences committed by the co-offenders.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the respondents, finding no merit in their appeals. The court determined that the trial was conducted fairly, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable conviction, and the sentences were appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' convictions and sentences remained unchanged.

Orders