R v Early (No 6) - [2023] NSWSC 581

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Early (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 581
Hearing dates: 24 May 2023
Date of orders: 24 May 2023
Decision date: 30 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
Application Refused

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — Evidence — Murder trial — Where Crown case relies upon circumstantial evidence as well as alleged admissions — “Flight” going to consciousness of guilt — Accused travelled to Queensland shortly after deceased’s body was discovered — Where the accused told his landlord he was travelling to Queensland but that he would return — Where the accused paid one week’s rent in advance — Whether the evidence is capable of constituting evidence of flight demonstrating a consciousness of guilt — Application by the Crown to rely on the evidence as consciousness of guilt refused

Cases Cited:
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Stanley Bruce Early (Accused)
Rex (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:

J Clarke (Accused)
K McKay SC (Crown)

Solicitors:
Schumer Lawyers (Accused)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/00174129

JUDGMENT

Stanley Bruce Early, the accused, has pleaded not guilty to one count that he, on or about 13 January 1987, in Randwick in the State of New South Wales, did murder Raymond Frederick Keam.
The trial commenced on 1 May 2023, with the jury being empanelled on 2 May 2023. The Crown foreshadowed, although did not open on, evidence of “flight” relevant to consciousness of guilt reasoning.
The Crown case is that at some time between midnight and 6:00am on 13 January 1987, Mr Keam was assaulted. It is the Crown case that it was the accused who either assaulted Mr Keam, or else was part of a group who assaulted him, causing his death. At approximately 6:06am, Mr Keam was found deceased in Alison Park, Randwick. There were scuff marks on his trouser legs just below the knees. There was also dirt and stains on the t-shirt he was wearing. One of his trouser pockets was turned out and the only personal item he had on him was a small plastic comb. Mr Keam’s “Datsun 180B” was found parked on Francis Street, at the northern end of the park. Missing from Mr Keam’s possession were his keys.
A post-mortem examination was completed following the death of Mr Keam. A review of the post-mortem and evidence was conducted by a forensic pathologist in 2021. It was determined that Mr Keam died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage, most likely caused by an impact to the face, side of the head, or neck. Mr Keam was struck a number of times to the side of his face, the right side of his neck, back, and mouth. It is likely that he then fell, causing further injuries to the back of his head. There were also significant blunt trauma injuries to his upper chest and sternum, causing a rib fracture. This fracture occurred before he died. The Crown allege that some of…

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 Early (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Early (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 581
Case: [2023] NSWSC 581
Decision Date: 30 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Early (No 6), the accused faced a murder trial where the Crown's case was built on both circumstantial evidence and alleged admissions by the accused. The central issue that the court had to address was whether the accused's travel to Queensland shortly after the discovery of the deceased's body could be considered as "flight" indicative of a consciousness of guilt. The accused had informed his landlord of his travel plans to Queensland and had paid one week's rent in advance, which the Crown sought to use as evidence of flight.

The court considered the nature of the evidence presented by the Crown and whether it was sufficient to support a finding of flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court examined the accused's actions, including his explanation for the travel, the timing of the trip in relation to the discovery of the body, and the advance rent payment. The court concluded that the evidence did not clearly demonstrate a flight that could be interpreted as indicative of guilt. The reasoning was that the accused's actions could be reasonably explained without implicating guilt for the murder.

Consequently, the court refused the Crown's application to rely on the evidence as indicative of flight demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to support such a conclusion and that alternative explanations for the accused's actions were plausible. As a result, the Crown was not permitted to use this evidence to bolster their case against the accused.

Orders