R v K

Case [2003] NSWCCA 406 23 December 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
59 NSWLR 431
144 A Crim R 468

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406 revised - 29/01/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 5 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Grove J at 95; Dunford J at 96

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Conviction and sentence quashed; 3. Direct a new trial.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - whether murder trial miscarried if jury sought and found irrelevant, inadmissible and highly prejudicial material concerning the appellant.

LEGISLATION CITED: Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK)
Juries Act 1974 (UK)
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Jury Act 1995 (Qld)

CASES CITED: Attorney General (NSW) v Mayas Pty Limited (1988) 14 NSWLR 342
Attorney General for New South Wales v Murphy [1869] 21 LT 598
Clamp v Lyne [1895] 11 WN (NSW) 108
John Fairfax and Sons Limited v Police Tribunal of
NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
Lalchan Nassan v The State [1986] AC 860
Nesbitt v Parrett [1902] 18 TLR 510
Ras Behari Lal v The King-Emporor [1933] 1 All ER 723
R v Allan [2002] 133 A Crim R 444
R v Bell [1998] NSWCCA 131
R v Booth (1982) 8 A Crim R 4
R v Brown (1907) 7 SR (NSW) 290
R v Cant [2002] NTCCA 8
R v Chapman (1976) 63 Cr App R 75
R v Cogley [2000] VSCA 231
R v Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336
R v Emmett, R v Masland (1988) 14 NSWLR 327
Regina v Fairclough Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court of Western Australia 14 February 1995
R v HJS [2000] NSWCCA 205
R v Landsdell NSWCCA 22 May 1995
R v Laws [No 2] (2000) 116 A Crim R 70
R v Marsland NSWCCA 17 July 1991
R v McLaclan [2000] VSC 215
R v Minarowska and Kozial (1995) 83 A Crim R 78
R v Papadopoulos [1979] 1 NZLR 621
Regina v Rinaldi & Kessey (1993) 30 NSWLR 605
R v Roads [1967] 2 QB 108
R v Rudkowsky NSWCCA 15 December 1992
R v Sumner (1985) 19 A Crim R 210
R v Thompson [1962] 1 All ER 65
R v Woolcott Forbes (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 333
R v Wooler [1817] 2 Stark 111
R v Young [1995] 2 QB 324
Re Mathews & Ford [1973] VR 199
Vaise v Delaval [1785] 1 TR 11
Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41

PARTIES :
Regina
K

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60076/03

COUNSEL: M G Sexton SC with J A Quilter (Crown)
M Thangaraj and J McLachlan

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70012/02

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Kirby J

60076/03

WOOD CJ AT CL
GROVE J
DUNFORD J

Tuesday 22 December 2003

R v K

On 14 August 2002, the appellant was indicted for the murder of his first wife, J. K., A verdict of guilty was returned on 17 October…

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 K

Details

AGLC: R v K [2003] NSWCCA 406
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 406
Decision Date: 23 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v K involved an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for murder. The trial judge had allowed the jury to view material, which was considered irrelevant, inadmissible, and highly prejudicial. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent argued that the trial had miscarried because the jury was exposed to material that should not have been before them, potentially influencing their verdict.

The central legal issue was whether the trial had indeed miscarried due to the jury's exposure to irrelevant, inadmissible, and prejudicial material. The court had to determine whether such exposure was sufficient to vitiate the trial and warrant a new trial or an acquittal. The respondent contended that the material was highly prejudicial and could have led to an unfair outcome, given its irrelevance and inadmissibility in the context of the trial.

The High Court held that while the material in question was indeed irrelevant, inadmissible, and prejudicial, its impact on the trial did not reach the threshold necessary to vitiate it. The court considered the overall circumstances of the trial, including the strength of the prosecution's case and the nature of the material in question. The court found that the trial judge had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the prejudicial effect of the material, and the material did not dominate the trial or unfairly prejudice the respondent. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders