R v Reid

Case [2004] NSWCCA 301 25 August 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
148 A Crim R 425

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v REID [2004] NSWCCA 301

HEARING DATE(S): 25 August 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 35; Wood CJ at CL at 30; Howie J at 31

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - recusal - refusal of judge to disqualify himself from sentencing - jurisdictional basis for an appeal from a ruling as to disqualification - grounds on which leave to appeal against sentence may be sought

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association of New South Wales (1983) 151 CLR 288
Barton v Walker (1979) 2 NSWLR 740
Rogerson v R (1990) 45 A Crim R 253
Brooks v Uphohn Company (1988) 85 FCR 469
Witness v Marsden (2000) 49 NSWLR 429
R v Bow Street Magistrate: Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 104
Australian National Industries v Spedley Securities Limited (in liq) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411
House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 206 ALR 116

PARTIES :
Regina
Craig Anthony Reid

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1840; (previously 60305/04)

COUNSEL: B Sandilands (Reid)
D C Frearson (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Reid)
S Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70075/03

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hulme J

- 9 -

60305/04

SPIGELMAN CJ
WOOD CJ at CL
HOWIE J

Wednesday 25 August 2004

REGINA v Craig Anthony REID

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: On 5 July 2004 Craig Anthony Reid pleaded guilty to a charge that on or about 7 August 2002 he murdered Samantha Meredith. The matter came before Justice Hulme for sentencing. His Honour was asked to refer the matter to a different judge for sentencing.

2 This application was based on the fact that on 13 May 2004 Justice Hulme had sentenced Sharon Louise Ward for being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Samantha Meredith. Counsel for Mr Reid asked that Justice Hulme disqualify himself from sentencing the Applicant on the basis of his remarks on sentence in the case of Ward. In a judgment of 23 July 2004 Justice Hulme refused to disqualify himself.

3 Before this Court is an application under s5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for leave to appeal from the decision of Justice Hulme. The Applicant submits that his Honour made an interlocutory judgment or order, within the meaning of s5F.

4 It is necessary to set out some sections of the remarks on sentence of Justice Hulme on 13 May 2004 in the case of Sharon Louise Ward:

“[42] So far as the Prisoner’s demeanour during the course of her evidence is concerned she was upset and seemed genuine.

…

[46] … Although the deceased was wrapped…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2004] NSWCCA 301
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 301
Decision Date: 25 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved the defendant, Reid, who was convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced by a judge. Reid sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that the judge should have disqualified himself from the sentencing process due to potential bias. The matter was brought before the court, which was tasked with determining whether the judge's refusal to disqualify himself was legally sound and if the appeal against the sentence could be based on the alleged recusal. The court had to address whether there was a jurisdictional basis for appealing the ruling on disqualification and what grounds, if any, were available for seeking leave to appeal against the sentence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the judge had correctly assessed the necessity for his disqualification and whether the refusal to disqualify himself constituted a ground for appeal against the sentence. The court had to examine the principles governing judicial disqualification and the process for appealing such decisions. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the extent to which the alleged error in disqualification could form the basis of an appeal against the sentence itself.

In its reasoning, the court found that the judge's refusal to disqualify himself was indeed reviewable and was subject to judicial scrutiny. The court held that there was a jurisdictional basis for an appeal from the ruling regarding the judge's disqualification. However, the court also noted that the grounds for seeking leave to appeal against the sentence were narrow and that the alleged error in disqualification alone was not sufficient to warrant an appeal against the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring impartiality in judicial proceedings but also stressed the need to adhere to established legal processes in challenging sentencing decisions.

The court concluded that while the judge's refusal to disqualify himself was reviewable, the appeal against the sentence could not be based solely on this ground. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the refusal to disqualify the judge was allowed, but the appeal against the sentence itself was dismissed due to the insufficiency of the grounds presented.

Orders