R v Rees

Case [2001] NSWCCA 23 16 February 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Rees [2001] NSWCCA 23 revised - 16/02/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60656/00; 60674/00

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 8 February 2001
Thursday 15 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 February 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Jason Lee Rees

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA; Grove J at 1; Kirby J at 52

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70106/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Bell J

COUNSEL : M.C. Marien (Crown)
J.C. Papayanni (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
Jeffreys & Associates (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law and procedure - Killing in course of robbery - Joint enterprise by two offenders - Crown acceptance of plea of guilty by one of them to robbery - Separate trial of other - Directions to jury if unsatisfied which was actual assailant - Verdict of manslaughter on indictment for murder - Test of liability for manslaughter by participant in extended joint criminal enterprise - Leave to cross examine unfavourable Crown witness - Directions concerning lies - Warning concerning evidence of co-offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Maxwell v The Queen 1996 184 CLR 501
R v Adam 1999 47 NSWLR 267
Graham v The Queen 1998 195 CLR 606
R v G.A.C. NSWCCA Unrep 1 April 1997
R v Fowler [2000] NSWCCA 142
R v Gee [2000] NSWCCA 198
R v Glasby [2000]NSWCCA 83
Lee v The Queen 1998 195 CLR 594
Butera v DPP (Vic) 1987 164 CLR 180
Pemble v The Queen 1971 124 CLR 107
R v Tangye 1997 92 A Crim R 546
R v Chai [2000] NSWCCA 320
R v Clough 1992 28 NSWLR 396
Wilson v The Queen 1992 174 CLR 313
DPP v Newbury 1977 AC 5000

DECISION: Appeal allowed; New trial ordered; Crown appeal on sentence dismissed

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60656/00

60674/00

Friday 16 February 2001

REGINA v JASON LEE REES

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J : Jason Lee Rees was convicted of manslaughter following a trial before Bell J and a jury in the Supreme Court sitting at Wollongong. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of four years and three months. There are appeals before the Court by the Crown seeking increase in sentence and by Rees against the conviction. Although he is respondent to the Crown appeal, it will be convenient to refer to him throughout as the appellant.

2 Some background facts and circumstances touching the course of proceedings should be sketched.

3 The victim was described as a small time drug dealer who lived alone in a unit dwelling in a Wollongong suburb. On the morning of 18 November 1997 he was found in that unit by a neighbour. He was beaten and bleeding and taken therefrom to hospital. He died on the next day. He was discovered to have multiple injuries but the direct cause of death was blunt force head injury.

4 Following investigation, the appellant and another, Mark Chipperfield, were charged with murder. Trial was scheduled…

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 Rees

Details

AGLC: R v Rees [2001] NSWCCA 23
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 23
Decision Date: 16 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia, which heard the case of Rees, who was convicted of manslaughter after pleading guilty to being part of a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in a killing. The case involved a joint criminal enterprise with another person, who had already pleaded guilty to robbery. The issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury, and whether the trial judge should have allowed Rees to cross-examine a Crown witness who was unfavourable to the prosecution.

The court considered whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury on the question of which participant was the actual assailant. The court held that the trial judge had given appropriate directions to the jury, and that the jury was entitled to convict Rees of manslaughter if they were not satisfied that he was the actual assailant. The court also considered whether the trial judge erred in not allowing Rees to cross-examine an unfavourable Crown witness. The court held that the trial judge was correct not to allow the cross-examination as it would have been oppressive to the witness. The court further considered whether the trial judge erred in not giving a direction concerning lies and whether the trial judge should have warned the jury concerning evidence of a co-offender. The court held that the trial judge was correct not to give such directions as it would have been oppressive to the witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed, and Rees' conviction of manslaughter was upheld. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct, and that the trial judge did not err in not allowing Rees to cross-examine the unfavourable Crown witness, not giving a direction concerning lies or warning the jury concerning evidence of a co-offender. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of manslaughter, and that the conviction should be upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders