R v Mr - [2000] FCA 1127

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
R v MR [2000] FCA 1127
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – reference under s 30A of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 – whether question raised for determination arose “at or in connection with” trial – question not decided by trial judge – appeal incompetent
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 30A
Director of Public Prosecutions v G (1999) 85 FCR 566 applied
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference (No 2 of 1996) (Vic) [1998] 3 VR 241 applied
Caledonian Collieries Pty Ltd v Spiers (1957) 97 CLR 202 referred
Nydam v R [1977] VR 430 referred
R v Taktak (1988) 14 NSWLR 226 referred
R v MR
A 5 of 2000
MILES, SACKVILLE & KENNY JJ
CANBERRA
11 AUGUST 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 5 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
~~APPLICANT~~Appellant

AND:

MR
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, SACKVILLE & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

11 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The reference appeal be dismissed as incompetent.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 5 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND:

MR
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, SACKVILLE & KENNY JJ

DATE:

11 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

Guiseppe Joe Cinque died on 26 October 1997. Earlier that day, he had been drugged with Rohypnol by his de facto wife (“S”). She had subsequently given him one or more dosages of heroin with the intention of causing his death. His death was in fact caused by the administration of the drugs by her. S was indicted for murder. She was subsequently found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of her diminished responsibility.
The respondent (“the accused”), who was a friend of S, was also charged with offences in connection with Mr Cinque’s death. Upon her arraignment in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the accused pleaded not guilty to the murder, or, in the alternative, manslaughter, of Mr Cinque at Canberra on or about 26 October 1997. She also pleaded not guilty to additional charges of attempted murder or, in the alternative, the intentional and unlawful attempted administration of a stupefying drug (namely, heroin) likely to endanger human life. Pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), the accused elected to be tried by judge alone. At the close of the Crown case, the learned trial judge found the accused not guilty of the offences charged. The Court is concerned with a question said to arise in connection with the charge of manslaughter.
This is a reference appeal pursuant to s 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act

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 Mr

Details

AGLC: R v Mr [2000] FCA 1127
Case: [2000] FCA 1127
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mr was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Mr, sought to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the State. The appeal was based on a conviction for a criminal offence, with the contention being that there was an error in the proceedings which warranted a review by the High Court.

The primary legal issue the Court needed to address was whether the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the High Court, given that the appellant had not directly appealed from the trial court. Instead, the appeal had originated from an intermediate appellate court. This raised the question of whether the appeal was properly brought under the provisions of the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth), specifically concerning the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

The Court determined that the appeal was not within its jurisdiction. It reasoned that the statutory provisions for appeals to the High Court require an appeal to come directly from the trial court, unless there is an exception specifically provided for in the legislation. Since Mr's appeal originated from an intermediate appellate court rather than directly from the trial court, it did not meet the jurisdictional criteria for a direct appeal to the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was deemed incompetent and dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The reference appeal be dismissed as incompetent.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 5 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	THE QUEEN ~~APPLICANT~~Appellant
AND:	MR Respondent
JUDGES:	MILES, SACKVILLE & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	11 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

BETWEEN:	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND:	MR Respondent

JUDGES:	MILES, SACKVILLE & KENNY JJ
DATE:	11 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA