R v LN; R v AW (No. 11) - [2017] NSWSC 1430

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LN; R v AW (No. 11) [2017] NSWSC 1430
Hearing dates: 11-12 April 2017
Date of orders: 12 April 2017
Decision date: 20 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Publication of reasons for rulings on applications for further directions at conclusion of summing-up

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder trial – applications for further directions at conclusion of summing-up – publication of reasons for rulings
Legislation Cited: ---
Cases Cited: Burns v The Queen (1975) 132 CLR 258; [1975] HCA 21
EM v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67; [2007] HCA 46
R v LN; R v AW (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 119
R v LN; R v AW (No. 9) [2017] NSWSC 376
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
LN (Accused)
AW (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms MM Cunneen SC (Crown)
Mr EW Wilson SC (LN)
Ms A Moen (AW)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (LN)
Matouk Joyner Lawyers (AW)

File Number(s): 2014/271972 (LN)2014/274229 (AW)
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: This judgment contains my reasons with respect to applications made by counsel for each Accused for redirections at the conclusion of my summing-up, in particular where the application was refused (SU223). It also recounts questions from the jury during deliberations and the course taken by the Court in that respect.
The Accused, LN and AW, stood trial for the murder of a three-year old child, Joseph or Joey, who was the son of LN and the stepson of AW. The way in which the Crown put its case against each Accused was summarised in R v LN; R v AW (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 119 at [5]-[55] and in R v LN; R v AW (No. 9) [2017] NSWSC 376.

Application by LN for a Further Direction Concerning Admissions

Mr Wilson SC, counsel for LN, sought a further direction with respect to admissions said to have been made by his client (SU186-187, 200-201).
I directed the jury in the summing-up concerning the issue of admissions or confessions (SU30-34). The jury was directed that, before a statement could be taken into account as an admission or confession by one of the Accused persons, the jury must be satisfied, firstly, that the particular Accused person made the statement; secondly, that what he or she said was true; and thirdly, that what the particular Accused said implicated that person in some respect in the commission of the crime for which that Accused was standing trial (SU31).
Further directions to the jury indicated that the real issues in this trial with respect to LN concerned the second and third issues, namely whether what was said to be an admission was true and whether it implicated her in some respect in the commission of the crime for which she was standing trial (SU32). Some examples were provided to the jury of what the Crown said were admissions by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v LN; R v AW (No. 11) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 1430
Decision Date: 20 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, LN and AW, were on trial for murder. The Crown's case against them involved multiple charges, including murder, attempted murder, and firearm offences. Both respondents applied for further directions from the court following the closing of the Crown's case and the conclusion of the summing-up. The applications focused on the direction given by the trial judge to the jury regarding the consideration of self-defence and the potential publication of reasons for the rulings on those applications. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury and whether the reasons for the rulings on the applications for further directions should be published.

The court considered whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the defence of self-defence and whether the judge's directions adequately covered the legal principles involved. The court also assessed the appropriateness of publishing the reasons for the rulings on the applications for further directions. The court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in the directions given to the jury regarding self-defence. The court held that the reasons for the rulings on the applications for further directions should not be published as it would be inappropriate to do so in the context of an ongoing trial.

The applications for further directions were dismissed. The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct and that publishing the reasons for the rulings on the applications would be inappropriate. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of the reasons for rulings in criminal trials to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the rights of the accused.

Orders