R v Olig - [2002] NSWCCA 249

CITATION: R .v. OLIG [2002] NSWCCA 249

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60016/01

HEARING DATE(S): 16 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 April 2002

PARTIES :

Shane OLIG - Appellant
Regina - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Barr J at 2; McClellan J at 43

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70016/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Adams J

COUNSEL : Appellant in person
Mr P.E. Barrett for the Crown

SOLICITORS: Appellant in person
S.E. O'Connor for the Crown

CASES CITED:
Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 521
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305

DECISION: See Judgment at Paragraph 41

60016/01

Mason P
Barr J
McClellan J
16 April 2002

Regina v Shane OLIG

Judgment

1 Mason P: I invite Barr J to give the first judgment.

2 Barr J: The appellant, Shane Olig, appeals against a conviction for manslaughter entered in the Supreme Court and seeks leave to appeal against the resulting sentence, namely a term of twelve years with a non-parole period of eight years.

3 The Crown case was as follows. By Saturday 24 July 1999 the appellant had been in a domestic relationship with the deceased, Annette Openshaw, for a substantial number of years. At some time not long before that day they ceased to live together. On 24 July 1999 the appellant went to the deceased’s house with a can of petrol and set fire to it. In the resulting fire the deceased was killed. The appellant left the house while the deceased was inside and drove quickly away. Later on the deceased's body was found in the kitchen. Medical evidence established that she died of smoke inhalation.

4 The Crown called several witnesses who were neighbours of Miss Openshaw or who lived nearby. One of them, Mr Devine, heard a banging sound and then the sound of breaking glass and a loud thud which sounded to him like the deceased's front door being closed. He looked out and saw smoke billowing out of the deceased's house and the appellant smashing one of the windows. The appellant was saying, "Annette, get out" and, "Ray, (referring to Mr Devine) call the police". Two other neighbours, Mr Skillman and Mr Kingsbury, awoke to sounds of glass smashing. Mr Skillman heard somebody call, "you bitch". Mr Kingsbury heard that the appellant angrily call out, "Annette, you bitch". Mr Kingsbury saw the house on fire and the appellant coming out of the front door, getting into his car, reversing and driving away.

5 As the Fire Brigade and the police were arriving the appellant telephoned another witness, Ms Jones, and said, "I have done it this time". He said that he was bleeding and had cuts to the arms. He sounded upset and his speech was slow.

6 Mr Devine spoke to the appellant on the telephone and the appellant said, "I've done it this time" or, "I've done it now". He went on…

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 Olig

Details

AGLC: R v Olig [2002] NSWCCA 249
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 249
Decision Date: 16 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Olig, the appellant, sought to appeal against his conviction for manslaughter and the resulting sentence, which was twelve years with a non-parole period of eight years. The Crown case alleged that Olig set fire to the house of the deceased, Annette Openshaw, resulting in her death. The appellant claimed that he took a jerry can of petrol to the house at the request of Openshaw because her old jerry can was damaged. The court had to determine whether the evidence supported the appellant's account and whether there were any errors in the trial that warranted an appeal.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the appellant's account was not credible. The neighbours' testimonies and the appellant's own admissions supported the Crown's case that the appellant deliberately set fire to the house. The court found no errors in the trial judge's summing up or in the admission of tape-recorded evidence. Furthermore, the court held that any issues with the conduct of defence counsel could have been addressed at trial and did not warrant an appeal. The court also found that the sentence was within the appropriate range and did not merit an appeal.

In conclusion, the appeal against the conviction and the sentence was dismissed. The reasoning of the court was based on the credibility of the evidence presented at trial, the lack of errors in the trial proceedings, and the appropriateness of the sentence.

Orders