Legal Research
Cases
R v Jenkin (No 18) (Verdict)

R v Jenkin (No 18) (Verdict)

Case [2018] NSWSC 978 27 June 2018

Murder

Conspiracy to Murder

Reckless Indifference to Human Life

Circumstantial Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jenkin (No 18) (Verdict) [2018] NSWSC 978
Hearing dates: 2 May 2018 – 20 June 2018
Date of orders: 27 June 2018
Decision date: 27 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Verdicts of:
(1) Not guilty of murder
(2) Guilty of manslaughter
(3) Guilty of conspiracy to murder

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – conspiracy to murder – trial by Judge alone – circumstantial case – body in surfboard bag – decaying corpse – complications in medical evidence – body dropped out of window after death – possible explanation for a number of injuries observed on post mortem examination – where avulsed tooth located in bowel – indicates trauma occasioned before death – whether other injuries occasioned before or after death – whether evidence capable of excluding other perpetrators – analysis of circumstantial case

CRIMINAL LAW – murder – where series of assaults – where act causing death not known – “homicidal violence” – whether Crown must prove intention coincides with act causing death – reckless indifference to human life – whether accused foresaw probability of death
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence that may be unreliable – warnings that would be given to a jury – whether woman with hearing difficulties heard a man moaning in the morning – nobbling of witness – consciousness of guilt – disposal of corpse – attempt to “off” witness – analysis of evidence – significant malfeasance
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18 and 26
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132 and 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97, 101, and 165
Cases Cited: Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395; [1981] HCA 17
Aubrey v The Queen (2017) 260 CLR 305; [2017] HCA 18
Campbell v R [2014] NSWCCA 175
Campbell v The Queen (1981) WAR 286
Davies v The King [1937] HCA 27; (1937) 57 CLR 170
HML v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334
Hughes v The Queen [2017] HCA 20; 92 ALJR 52
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Lane v The Queen [2018] HCA 28
McEwan v The Queen [2013] VSCA 329
McPhillamy v R [2017] NSWCCA 130
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2
R v Brooks [2017] NSWSC 188
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; [1985] HCA 22
R v Jenkin [2018] NSWSC 634
R v Jenkin (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 697
R v Jenkin (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 730
R v Jenkin (No 8) [2018] NSWSC 704
R v Jenkin (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 705
R v Jenkin (No 14) [2018] NSWSC 837
R v Jenkin (No 17) [2018] NSWSC 907
R v Lawford (1993) 61 SASR 542
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
R v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701; [2002] NSWCCA 455
R v Ryder [1995] 2 NZLR 271
R v Styman; R v…

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 Jenkin (No 18) (Verdict)

Details

AGLC: R v Jenkin (No 18) (Verdict) [2018] NSWSC 978
Case: [2018] NSWSC 978
Decision Date: 27 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Jenkin (No 18), the accused was found guilty of murder by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involved the death of a woman, whose body was discovered in a decaying state inside a surfboard bag. The accused was charged with conspiracy to murder, and the trial hinged on circumstantial evidence and complex medical findings.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the body and the medical evidence. The court had to consider whether the injuries observed on the post-mortem examination were inflicted before or after death, and whether the evidence could exclude the possibility of other perpetrators. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Crown had established the accused's intention to cause death or showed reckless indifference to human life.

The court found that the evidence, despite its circumstantial nature, was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt. The analysis of the post-mortem findings, including the location of an avulsed tooth in the bowel, indicated trauma before death. The court also considered the series of assaults and concluded that the Crown had demonstrated the accused's reckless indifference to human life. The court was unpersuaded by the accused's arguments regarding the unreliability of certain evidence, such as the testimony of a woman with hearing difficulties and the nobbling of a witness. The court's verdict was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and the application of relevant legal principles.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of the accused on charges of murder and conspiracy to murder. The judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders