Attorney General Hansard Legislative Assembly 17 May 1990, 3694. Report of the NSW Law Reform Commission, 1999, Number 93, Review of s 316 Crimes Act
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Imo Sagoa - The appellant The Crown
Representation:
Mr S Boland - Appellant Mr T Gunter, DPP - Crown
File Number(s):
2010/251843
Judgment
Introduction
On 23 May 2010 a party at Dee Why ended abruptly when a young man, Edan Brown was stabbed. Mr Brown died of his injuries soon after being taken to hospital. That morning investigating police arrested and tried to interview a number of partygoers. They refused to answer questions, on legal advice. Other partygoers were identified. Police suspicions as to the identity of the stabber soon centred on Anthony Jones or 'AJ' but their inquiry was a broad one. Imo Sagoa, also known as 'junior,' was identified as a person of interest: exhibit 6.
On 26 May 2010, Mr Sagoa, the appellant, made a formal statement to police: exhibit 5. In it he said he was at the party but had left,…
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 Imo Sagoa
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Imo Sagoa [2014] NSWDC 44
Case
[2014] NSWDC 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Imo Sagoa, the defendant was convicted of concealing a serious indictable offence and hindering the investigation of that offence. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Appeal of a state in Australia. The defendant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had a lawful excuse for his actions.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the defendant had a lawful excuse for his actions and whether the prosecution had discharged the evidential onus of proving that the defendant had concealed a serious indictable offence and hindered the investigation. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the applicable statute, as well as relevant case law.
The court found that the prosecution had not discharged the evidential onus of proving that the defendant had concealed a serious indictable offence and hindered the investigation. The court held that the defendant had a lawful excuse for his actions, as he had acted in good faith and for the protection of his family. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, which had the effect of shifting the evidential onus onto the defendant. As a result, the conviction appeal was upheld, and the conviction and all other orders of the Court below were set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
The conviction appeal is upheld.
I set aside the conviction and all other orders of the Court below