Legal Research
Cases
R v Jacobs

R v Jacobs

Case [2004] NSWCCA 462 20 December 2004

Criminal Liability

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Constructive Murder

Conditional Immunity

Consciousness of Guilt

Jury Directions

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
151 A Crim R 452

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Jacobs and Mehajer [2004] NSWCCA 462

HEARING DATE(S): 8/9/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sperling J at 349; Kirby J at 355

DECISION: Appeal by Mehajer; 1.Appeal against convictions dismissed; 2.Leave to appeal against sentence granted; 3.Appeals against sentence dismissed.; Appeal by Jacobs; 1.Appeal against convictions dismissed; 2.Leave to appeal against sentence granted; 3.Appeals against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - robbery in company with infliction of grievous bodily harm - robbery in company with wounding - joint criminal enterprise - common purpose - constructive murder - conditional indemnity given to witness in exchange for evidence - consciousness of guilt - grounds pertaining to directions to jury - ss 3A and 21A of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 164, 165 Evidence Act 1995 - s 18 Crimes Act 1900.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Bromley v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315
Craig Williamson Pty Limited v Barrowcliff [1915] VLR 450
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414
Gillard v The Queen (2003) 78 ALJR 64
Hui Chi-Ming v The Queen [1992] 1 AC 34
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
M v The Queen (1994) 69 ALJR 83
Markby v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 108
Matusevich v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 633
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pollitt v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 558
R v Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298
R v Bell (1987) 8 NSWLR 311
R v Brougham (1986) 43 SASR 187
R v Burke [1983] 2 NSWLR 93
R v Button; R v Griffen (2002) 54 NSWLR 455
R v Chen [2002] NSWCCA 174
R v Chen (2002) 130 A Crim R 300
R v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396
R v Crowley [2004] NSWCCA 256
R v Crozier NSWCCA 8 March 1996
R v Downs [1985] 3 NSWLR 312
R v Duong, Lu, Do and Tran (1992) 61 A Crim R 140
R v Elliott and Hitchins (1983) 9 A Crim R 238
R v Foster (1995) 78 A Crim R 517
R v Gutierrez [2004] NSWCCA 22
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Henning NSWCCA 11 May 1990
R v Horsey (1862) 3 F & F 287; 176 ER 129
R v JB [1999] NSWCCA 93
R v Johnston [2004] NSWCCA 58
R v Kalinowski; R v Timbury (1930) 31 SR (NSW) 377
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 20
R v Kyriakou & Ors (1987) 29 A Crim R 50
R v Leoni [1999] NSWCCA 14
R v McGarrity NSWCCA 10 June 1994
R v Mills NSWCCA 3 April 1995
R v Mohan [1967] AC 187
R…

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 Jacobs

Details

AGLC: R v Jacobs [2004] NSWCCA 462
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 462
Decision Date: 20 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jacobs involved the defendant, Jacobs, who was charged with murder and robbery. The dispute centred on whether Jacobs participated in a joint criminal enterprise with others, resulting in grievous bodily harm and ultimately the death of the victim during a robbery. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether Jacobs was part of a joint criminal enterprise, whether there was sufficient evidence to establish constructive murder, and the admissibility of evidence obtained in exchange for conditional indemnity given to a witness. The court had to determine the applicability of sections 3A and 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, sections 164 and 165 of the Evidence Act 1995, and section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The court's reasoning involved assessing the evidence presented, including the credibility of the witness whose testimony was given in exchange for conditional indemnity. The court examined whether the witness's evidence was reliable and whether it sufficiently established Jacobs's involvement in the crime. The court also considered the concept of common purpose and whether Jacobs had the requisite intent to commit the crime. In delivering its judgment, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Jacobs was part of a joint criminal enterprise and that he was guilty of murder under the principle of constructive murder. The court further determined that the evidence obtained from the witness, despite the conditional indemnity, was admissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. The court also addressed the sentencing implications under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

The final orders of the court included a conviction for murder, with the sentencing to be determined in a separate proceeding. The court found that the prosecution had successfully established all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendant was found guilty of murder. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that the evidence obtained from witnesses, even if given in exchange for indemnity, met the legal standards for admissibility and reliability. The case underscored the principles of joint criminal enterprise and the application of statutory provisions in criminal trials.

Orders