Legal Research
Cases
R v Greentree

R v Greentree

Case [2019] NSWSC 216 8 February 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Daniel Greentree [2019] NSWSC 216
Hearing dates: 08 February 2019
Decision date: 08 February 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
A certificate will be issued in the terms of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW).

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – costs – costs in criminal cases – certificate – reasonableness of instituting proceedings – where applicant charged with accessory after the fact to murder – where applicant agreed to help friend by picking up children – where friend had killed her ex-husband – whether applicant aware of homicide – evidence of single witness unreliable – no other evidence of knowledge of homicide – criminal proceedings discontinued part way through trial – hypothetical prosecutor with the wisdom of hindsight – concession that certificate appropriate – certificate granted
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), s 3
Cases Cited: Allerton v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (1991) 24 NSWLR 550
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Mordaunt v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [2007] NSWCA 121; (2007) 171 A Crim R 510
R v Fejsa (1995) 82 A Crim R 253
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203; [2000] NSWCCA 196
R v Moore [2015] NSWSC 1263
R v Pavy (1997) 98 A Crim R 396
R v Raquel Hutchison [2019] NSWSC 25
R v Tooes [2008] NSWSC 291
Regina v Kaliamma Shanti Krishna [1999] NSWSC 525
Steven Alan Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129
Warwick Ian MacFarlane (Supreme Court (NSW), 12 August 1994, unrep),
Category: Costs
Parties: Regina
Daniel Greentree
Representation:
Counsel:
M Cunneen SC and R Wathukarage (Regina)
I Todd (Greentree)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Regina)
Tully & Chiper Lawyers (Greentree)

File Number(s): 2014/00319883
Publication restriction: See R v Hutchison, Wilkinson & Greentree (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1758. Suppression order over the surname of the deceased and the children who gave evidence in the trial. Pseudonyms to be used.

Ex tempore Judgment (revised)

HIS HONOUR: On 20 October 2014, Daniel Greentree, who I will call either "Mr Greentree" or "the applicant", was at home or thereabouts on the Central Coast. His partner or girlfriend received a distressed telephone call from a friend and neighbour, Raquel Hutchison. Ms Hutchison asked Mr Greentree's partner whether she could assist by picking up Raquel's children and driving them back to the Central Coast. For reasons of no present moment, Mr Greentree’s partner was unable to assist but said that she would speak to Mr Greentree and ask whether he could drive from the Central Coast to Sydney in order to pick up the children. Mr Greentree agreed to help out his friend.
There followed a series of telephone calls and text messages in which Ms Hutchison gave directions as to where they could meet and hand over the custody of the two children. Unbeknownst to Mr Greentree,…

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 Greentree

Details

AGLC: R v Greentree [2019] NSWSC 216
Case: [2019] NSWSC 216
Decision Date: 08 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Greentree, was charged with accessory after the fact to murder. The accused had agreed to assist a friend by collecting her children from school, unaware that his friend had just killed her ex-husband. The prosecution's case relied entirely on the evidence of a single witness, whose credibility was seriously undermined. There was no other evidence suggesting that the accused knew of the homicide. The proceedings were discontinued partway through the trial, and the respondent sought a certificate for legal costs.

The central issue before the court was whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of being acquitted at the time the criminal proceedings were instituted. The court needed to consider whether the evidence, which was unreliable and insufficient on its own, could have led a hypothetical prosecutor with the wisdom of hindsight to bring the case to trial.

The court granted the certificate, acknowledging that it was appropriate to do so. The evidence was deemed so unreliable and lacking in corroboration that it did not support a reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecution conceded that the certificate was appropriate, given the circumstances. The court agreed, finding that the circumstances did not present a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The court's decision was based on the unreliability of the single witness and the absence of any other evidence linking the respondent to the knowledge of the homicide. The hypothetical prosecutor, equipped with hindsight, would not have proceeded with the case, leading the court to conclude that the respondent had a reasonable prospect of acquittal. The certificate for legal costs was granted in light of these findings.

Orders