R v PL

Case [2012] NSWCCA 31 20 March 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31
Hearing dates: 9 December 2011
Decision date: 20 March 2012
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Simpson J at [50]; Adamson J at [51]
Decision:
1 Appeal allowed.
2 Verdict of acquittal on charge of manslaughter quashed.
3 Order a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - directed acquittal - whether trial judge erred in directing verdict of acquittal

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - directed acquittal - whether the evidence taken at its highest could support a guilty verdict
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - acquittal - discretion to order retrial - third retrial - whether jury guilty verdict would be set aside as unreasonable
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 107
Cases Cited: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Green v United States, 355 US 184 at 187-188 (1957)
Maxwell v The Queen (1995-1996) 184 CLR 501
May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; (1955) 92 CLR 654
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v PL [2010] NSWCCA 256; (2010) 261 ALR 365
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Smith v R (2000) 1 WLR 1644
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
PL (Respondent)
Representation: P G Ingram SC (Crown)
W Terracini SC (Respondent)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Archbold Legal Solutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/6766
Publication restriction: If there is to be a retrial, judgment should not be posted on the internet until after such trial.
Decision under appeal

Citation:

[2011] NSWSC 785

Date of Decision:

2011-07-29 00:00:00

Before:

Adams J

File Number(s):

2008/6766

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: This is an appeal brought by the Crown pursuant to s 107 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ("the Act") against the directed verdict of acquittal given following the conclusion of the Crown case on the trial of the respondent for the manslaughter of MG ("the deceased").

Prior to the trial the subject of the appeal, the respondent had stood trial for both the murder and the manslaughter of the deceased. The trial judge in that trial directed a verdict of acquittal. On appeal the verdict was quashed and a new trial ordered on the charge of manslaughter. It is from the directed verdict in that second trial that this appeal is brought.

The grounds of appeal

The Crown relies on two grounds:

1 His Honour erred by misdirecting himself on the test of whether there is a case to answer.

2 His Honour erred in finding that it was "usually necessary" for the Crown, in order to establish that there was a case to answer, to identify "the cause of death or the precise acts that resulted in that cause" of death.

Each of the parties accepted…

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 PL

Details

AGLC: R v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 31
Decision Date: 20 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against a directed acquittal in a criminal matter. The appellant, PL, was acquitted of charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and related offences. The appeal sought to challenge the trial judge's decision to direct an acquittal, arguing that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a guilty verdict. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's decision and determining whether it was appropriate to order a retrial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing an acquittal. This involved assessing whether the evidence presented at the trial, when considered at its highest, could support a guilty verdict. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the legal standards for directing an acquittal and whether the evidence was such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned a guilty verdict. The court also considered whether ordering a third retrial would be appropriate, given that a jury had previously found the appellant guilty in two earlier trials.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly directed an acquittal. The evidence, even when viewed at its highest, did not support a guilty verdict. The court held that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty based on the presented evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that ordering a third retrial would be inappropriate, as the jury's previous guilty verdicts in earlier trials were not so unreasonable as to warrant setting them aside. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

The High Court of Australia upheld the trial judge's decision to direct an acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The court found no error in the trial judge's ruling and held that the evidence did not support a guilty verdict. Additionally, the court concluded that ordering a third retrial would be inappropriate, given the previous jury verdicts. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

Orders