R v Green (No 10) - [2021] NSWSC 1449

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Green (No 10) [2021] NSWSC 1449
Hearing dates: 5-9 and 12-16 July; 20-24 and 27-30 September; 1, 5-8 and 11-13 October 2021
Date of orders: 15 November 2021
Decision date: 15 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) In relation to Count 1, my verdict is a Special Verdict of the act of fatally stabbing Teah Luckwell is proven, but Mr Green is not criminally responsible;
(2) In relation to Count 2, my verdict is a Special Verdict of the act of aggravated break and enter at Ernest Street, Oxley Vale is proven, but Mr Green is not criminally responsible;
(3) In relation to Count 3, my verdict is a Special Verdict of the act of using an offensive weapon at 48 Robert Street is proven, but Mr Green is not criminally responsible;
(4) Under s 67 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) Jesse Green is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;
(5) Under s 33 of the said Act order that Jesse Green is to be detained at such place and in such manner as the Mental Health Review Tribunal determines until released by due process of law;
(6) Direct that a copy of these reasons and of the evidence of Dr Allnutt and Dr Chew be forwarded to the Registrar of the Mental Health Review Tribunal;
(7) Remit sequences 2, 5, 6 and 9 on the s 166 certificate to the Local Court at Tamworth.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – special hearing – murder – wholly circumstantial case – reasons for verdict

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 6, 28, 29, 33, 51, 54, 56, 59, 67
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 133, 166
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 32, 38, 50; 116, 165
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33B, 105A, 112, 428B, 428C, 428F

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v the Queen (1994) 1979 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35

Texts Cited:
Pekka Saukko and Bernard Knight, Knight’s Forensic Pathology (CRC Press, 4th ed, 2015)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jesse Leigh Green (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B. Costello (Crown)
S. Bouveng (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Rice More & Gibson Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/106348
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The last clear proof that Ms Teah Luckwell was alive is provided by two aspects of the evidence led at the special hearing. The first is an excerpt of CCTV footage recorded by a camera located at 22 Petra Avenue, South Tamworth (part of Exhibit H). The footage depicts Ms Luckwell, whom I will refer to as Teah, without meaning disrespect, walking west along Petra Avenue outside the premises at 39 to 43, known in these proceedings…

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 Green (No 10)

Details

AGLC: R v Green (No 10) [2021] NSWSC 1449
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1449
Decision Date: 15 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a criminal matter concerning the accused, Green. The charge was murder, and the trial was conducted before a judge sitting alone, without a jury. The case was one of the wholly circumstantial variety, where the conviction relied entirely on the inference of guilt from the proven facts, without direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented and the standard of proof required to secure a conviction. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to allow the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. This required a careful examination of the chain of events and the logical inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the nature of circumstantial evidence and the standards of proof required in criminal cases. The court found that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to satisfy the trial judge of the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the proven facts and the logical inferences that could be drawn from them. The court concluded that the trial judge was correct to convict the accused based on the evidence presented.

The final orders of the court were to confirm the conviction of the accused for the crime of murder. The court also provided reasons for the verdict, which were intended to assist in any future appeal and to provide transparency and clarity regarding the basis for the conviction. The decision underscores the importance of a careful and detailed analysis of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and the high standard of proof required for conviction.

Orders