R v Moffatt [2000] NSWCCA 174 revised - 23/05/2000
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 60193/99
HEARING DATE(S):
10/05/2000
JUDGMENT DATE:
23 May 2000
PARTIES :
Regina Anthony Moffatt
JUDGMENT OF:
Wood CJ at CL at 1; Foster AJA at 78; Adams J at 79
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
70092/96
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Kirby J
COUNSEL :
Crown: M. Marien Appellant: A.M. Martin
SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor Mark Lees & Assoc
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against conviction - murder - trial by judge alone - role of Court of Appeal - causation - whether death of deceased caused by act of appellant - where more than one possible cause of death - where constitutional defect - admissibility of admissions - confabulation - reliability of admissions.
(1) Appeal dismissed; (2) Conviction and sentence confirmed
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60193/99
WOOD CJ at CL FOSTER AJJ ADAMS J
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
Regina v Anthony Stuart MOFFATT
The appellant was convicted of the offence of murder, following trial by judge alone. Both he and the deceased had consumed significant quantities of alcohol before becoming engaged in an argument in the course of which the appellant struck the deceased with a hammer and strangled him. The deceased was in poor health due to advanced cardiac disease and alcoholism. The issue in the trial was whether the death was attributable to the appellant, or to cardiac failure or acute alcohol toxicity independent of any act of the appellant.
The appellant appealed against the conviction on the grounds that; (1) the oral admissions alleged to have been made by him and admissions contained in his ERISP should not have been admitted into evidence; (2) the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was caused by an act of the appellant.
HELD (dismissing the appeal):
Ground 1: admissions If evidence is led which suggests that the truth of an admission may be adversely affected, then the Crown must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is unlikely that this was the case. The evidence of the admissions had significant probative value and there was no unfairness to the appellant. Although the judge did not specifically refer to s85 and 90 of the Evidence Act, the argument as to admissibility having been pursued under SS 135 and 137 of the Act, his findings addressed the issues arising under those sections as well.. Having regard to the expert evidence, the judge was correct in receiving the evidence.
The appellant’s observations of the deceased were not unreliable because he lacked medical expertise, since they were of the kind a lay person could make. Nor…
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 Moffatt
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Moffatt [2000] NSWCCA 174
Case
[2000] NSWCCA 174
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Moffatt involves an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Moffatt, was tried by a judge alone and found guilty of the murder of the deceased, XY. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in his findings regarding the cause of death, the admissibility of Moffatt's admissions, and whether there was a constitutional defect in the trial process.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant's actions, given that there were multiple possible causes of death, and whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the appellant's admissions into evidence. The court was also required to consider whether the trial was constitutionally sound, particularly in light of any confabulation or unreliability in the admissions made by the appellant.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant's actions, despite the presence of multiple possible causes. The court found that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, supported the conclusion that the appellant's actions were the primary cause of death. Regarding the admissibility of the appellant's admissions, the court found that, while there were concerns about the reliability of the admissions due to confabulation, the trial judge had appropriately assessed the reliability and exercised his discretion to admit the evidence. The court also determined that there was no constitutional defect in the trial process.
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The findings of the trial judge were upheld, and the appellant's conviction for murder was maintained.