R v Ray

Case [2003] NSWCCA 227 20 August 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
57 NSWLR 616

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Ray [2003] NSWCCA 227 revised - 29/08/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 6/8/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1, 124; Simpson J at 122; Adams J at 123

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Conviction quashed; 3. New trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - directions to jury - directions about lies - consciousness of guilt - application to discharge jury - whether refusal to hear counsel prior to jury deliberations an error - whether verdict unreasonable and/or could not be supported on the evidence - whether miscarriage of justice.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1
Robinson v The Queen (1991) 180 CLR 531
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
R v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

PARTIES :
Regina
David Stafford Ray

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60884/01

COUNSEL: M Grogan (C)
D Dalton (A)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70036/00

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : O'Keefe J

- 1 -

60884/01

WOOD CJ at CL

SIMPSON J

ADAMS J

Regina v David Ray

On 23 April 2001, the appellant was indicted for the manslaughter of his mother, Elvira Louise Ray, and was found guilty by a jury on 9 May 2001. He now appeals against that conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence that was imposed, namely, a term of imprisonment for seven years and six months, with a non parole period of four years.

Facts

The deceased died during the night of 10/11 November 1997, at her home, and upon autopsy was found to have had lethal levels of both alcohol and morphine in her system. It was the Crown case that the deceased and the appellant had been drinking vodka, and that at some stage he had injected her intramuscularly with an excessive amount of morphine. It was this that was relied upon as an unlawful and dangerous act, which substantially contributed to her death, with the unlawfulness being pursued either as an assault, requiring proof that the injection was given without consent, or as an offence under sections 5 and 13 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act which required proof that the morphine used had not been left at the home by a medical practitioner.

It was the appellant’s case at trial that the deceased most probably killed herself, either deliberately or accidentally, by the self administration of either some or all of the morphine found in her body, at a time when…

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 Ray

Details

AGLC: R v Ray [2003] NSWCCA 227
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 227
Decision Date: 20 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ray, the appellant was convicted of murder and the matter came before the court on appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the appellant's alleged lies and consciousness of guilt were adequate, and if the refusal to hear counsel prior to the jury deliberations constituted an error. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported on the evidence, and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and considered whether they were sufficient to enable the jury to make an informed decision. The court held that the trial judge's directions were adequate and did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the refusal to hear counsel prior to the jury deliberations did not constitute an error, as there was no evidence to suggest that the jury had been exposed to any material that could have influenced their decision. The court further held that the verdict was reasonable and could be supported on the evidence presented at trial.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. In reaching this decision, the court considered the evidence presented at trial, the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the appellant's arguments on appeal. The court found that the appellant's arguments were without merit and that the verdict was just and reasonable.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction for murder be upheld. The court did not grant any relief to the appellant and did not order a retrial or any other form of remedy.

Orders