R v Munro

Case [2019] NSWDC 743

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Munro [2019] NSWDC 743
Hearing dates: 2 December 2019
Date of orders: 06 December 2019
Decision date: 06 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [82]

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571
Dipangkear v R [2010] NSWCCA 156
Elsobky v R [2016] NSWCCA 168
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149
R v Archer [2017] NSWCCA 151
R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 553
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 216
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Elkassir [2013] NSWCCA 181
R v Errington [2005] NSWCCA348
R v Foster [2002] NSWCCA 215
R v Gonzales [2006] NSWCCA 4
R v Howcher (2004) 146 A Crim R 371
R v Koosmen [2004] NSWCCA 359
R v Thomas; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
David John Munro (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M. King (for the Offender)

  Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2018/00390063
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. The offender is to be sentenced in respect of two offences to which he has pleaded guilty, being:

  1. Aggravated dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 52A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). [1] This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

  2. Contravene prohibition/restriction of an apprehended violence order (domestic related) contrary to s 14 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). [2] This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units. [3]

    1. the 1900 Act.

    2. the 2007 Act.

    3. Dealt with pursuant to a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

  1. The Agreed Facts state that on 23 April 2018 a Final Apprehended Violence Order [4] was made against the offender protecting Amy Lee Smith (‘Ms Smith’) for a period of 12 months. At the time Ms Smith was the former partner of the Offender.

    4. AVO.

  2. The conditions of the order required, inter alia, that the offender not go into any place where Ms Smith lived.

  3. At 9:30pm on 1 July 2018, the offender left his premises at Oaklands and drove his vehicle to the premises where Ms Smith resided in Rand for the purposes of collecting her to return her to his premises in order to spend time with their 15 year old son, whose birthday was on 2 July 2018. They arrived at the offender’s premises around midnight.

  4. In circumstances which have not been outlined, at about 1:00am on 2 July 2018, the offender and Ms Smith left his premises to return to her home in the offender’s motor vehicle. At the time of leaving the offender’s premises, the offender…

Continue reading R v Munro

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Munro [2019] NSWDC 743
Case
[2019] NSWDC 743
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Munro involved an appeal by the respondent against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof and whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The respondent argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the onus of proof, placing an inappropriate burden on the respondent to disprove the prosecution's case. Additionally, the respondent contended that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the absence of any direct evidence linking the respondent to the murder and the presence of significant doubt as to his guilt.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and whether they had placed an undue burden on the respondent. The court also examined whether the conviction was safe and satisfactory, taking into account the absence of direct evidence and the presence of significant doubt as to the respondent's guilt. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate, as they accurately reflected the onus of proof in criminal cases. Furthermore, the court found that the conviction was safe and satisfactory, as the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to support the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of the murder of his wife.

The High Court of Australia upheld the respondent's conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The court held that the absence of direct evidence linking the respondent to the murder did not preclude a conviction, as the jury was entitled to draw inferences from the circumstantial evidence presented. The court further held that the presence of significant doubt as to the respondent's guilt did not render the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the jury was entitled to reject any reasonable doubt as to the respondent's guilt if satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's conviction for the murder of his wife.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [82]

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.