R v Hickson (No. 1) - [2019] NSWSC 1572

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hickson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1572
Hearing dates: 11 November 2019
Date of orders: 11 November 2019
Decision date: 12 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
See paragraphs [23] and [32]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - trial - opening address to jury by Crown Prosecutor – whether Prosecutor should be permitted to pen case to jury on alternative basis of joint criminal enterprise – whether there is evidence of involvement of another person
EVIDENCE – circumstantial Crown case – allegation that accused injured in attack on the deceased -whether evidence of medical consultation by accused later on the day of the murder was relevant and admissible
Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 137

Cases Cited:
Cooper v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 258; (2011) 215 A Crim R 149
Cooper v The Queen [2012] HCA 50; (2012) 87 ALJR 32
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Sever v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 135
The Queen v A2; The Queen v Magennis; The Queen v Vaziri [2019] HCA 35
Wood v R (2012) 84 NSWLR 581; [2012] NSWCCA 21

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Crown
Terry John Hickson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
P D Young SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/331768

JUDGMENT

The accused is charged with murdering Charles Carlton Skarratt on 21 or 22 December 1989. The deceased was attacked in the garage of his home in Woolwich. He received blunt force injuries and a number of stab wounds. The forensic pathologist said that the direct cause of the deceased’s death was the combined effects of stab wounds and multiple blunt force injuries.
The body of the deceased was found lying face up on the garage floor with his arms outstretched. The deceased was wearing a brown, suede, leather jacket which had been pulled up over his head. He was also wearing a green cardigan jumper and a light pink coloured shirt. Both had been pulled up from the normal wearing position. His trouser belt was missing and the trousers were undone or torn away at the fly. The trouser belt was bound around the ankles of the deceased, and the deceased’s head had black electrical tape over the bridge of the nose and mouth.
There were drag marks in blood and partial footprints in blood about the head and shoulders of the deceased.
The Crown has formulated its case on alternative bases:

a. The Crown alleges that the accused stabbed the deceased with an intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm;
b. In the alternative, the Crown alleges that the accused was part of a joint criminal enterprise with another to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased, and that the deceased was…

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 Hickson (No. 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Hickson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1572
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1572
Decision Date: 12 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against conviction by the appellant, Hickson, who was charged with the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that Hickson had injured the deceased during an attack, leading to the deceased's death. The court was required to determine whether the Crown Prosecutor should be permitted to open the case on the alternative basis of joint criminal enterprise and whether there was sufficient evidence of another person's involvement. Additionally, the court had to assess the admissibility of evidence regarding a medical consultation by Hickson later on the day of the murder.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the admissibility and relevance of evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellant argued that the Crown Prosecutor should not be allowed to pen the case on the basis of joint criminal enterprise, as there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim. Furthermore, the appellant contended that evidence of a medical consultation by Hickson later on the day of the murder was irrelevant and inadmissible, as it did not directly relate to the events surrounding the deceased's death.

The court, in its decision, held that the Crown Prosecutor should not be permitted to pen the case on the alternative basis of joint criminal enterprise, as there was no evidence to support such a claim. The court found that the evidence of the medical consultation was relevant and admissible, as it demonstrated Hickson's attempt to conceal his involvement in the attack on the deceased. The court held that the evidence of the medical consultation, along with other circumstantial evidence presented, was sufficient to support the appellant's conviction.

The court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellant, Hickson, for the murder of the deceased. The court found that the evidence presented, including the medical consultation, was relevant and admissible, and that the Crown Prosecutor's attempt to pen the case on the basis of joint criminal enterprise was not supported by the evidence. The appellant's appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders