R v Rich

Case [2000] NSWCCA 448 25 October 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Rich; R v Rich [2000] NSWCCA 448

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60672/99; 60766/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 October 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Samuel Shane Rich (@ Shane Warren Rich)
Regina v Shane Warren Rich (@ Samuel Shane Rich)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 56; Studdert J at 1; Whealy J at 57

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0272

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Job DCJ

COUNSEL : W. Dawe (Crown)
In person (Conviction appeal)
T. Game SC (Crown appeal on sentence)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
In person (Conviction appeal)
T.A. Murphy (Crown appeal on sentence)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Regina v M (1994) 181 CLR 487
Regina v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
Regina v Mitchell [2000] NSWCCA 188
Regina v AGR (unreported, NSWCCA, 24 July 1998)
Regina v Astill (No. 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60672/99
60766/99

WOOD CJ at CL
STUDDERT J
WHEALY J
Wednesday 25 October 2000

REGINA v SAMUEL SHANE RICH (@ SHANE WARREN RICH)
REGINA v SHANE WARREN RICH (@ SAMUEL SHANE RICH)

JUDGMENT
1   STUDDERT J: The appellant, Shane Warren Rich, stood trial in the District Court at Gosford charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. The jury found the appellant guilty and following conviction he was sentenced, on 22 October 1999, to four years penal servitude with a minimum term of two years and an additional term of two years.
2   The appellant has appealed again his conviction. The Crown has appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed.
3   The appellant has not been represented by counsel on his appeal against his conviction but he has had the benefit of representation by counsel on the Crown's appeal against sentence.

The appeal against conviction

4   The appellant relies upon a single ground in support of the appeal against conviction, namely:

"The conviction should be set aside on the grounds that it is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence."

5   The issue which this ground of appeal presents is whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the necessary elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, making due allowance for the advantage of the jury in seeing and hearing the witnesses. (See Regina v M (1994) 181 CLR 487; Regina v Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439 and Regina v Mitchell [2000] NSWCCA 188 at p 2.)
6   Consideration of this ground, of course, demands scrutiny of the evidence given at the appellant's trial, and I shall proceed to review this evidence.
7   The complainant was born in 1982 and on the case for the prosecution, the offence charged was committed on or about 4 February 1996 at the complainant's Central Coast home where he lived with his mother, his father and his sister. The complainant has an artificial leg.
8   The appellant…

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 Rich

Details

AGLC: R v Rich [2000] NSWCCA 448
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 448
Decision Date: 25 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rich involved an appeal against the conviction and a Crown appeal against the sentence. Shane Warren Rich, also known as Samuel Shane Rich, was convicted in the District Court of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. The appellant was sentenced to four years penal servitude with a minimum term of two years and an additional term of two years. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the conviction was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The Crown appealed against the adequacy of the sentence imposed. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appeal against conviction and the Crown appeal against sentence. In relation to the appeal against conviction, the Court found that the evidence presented was compelling and the jury's verdict was open to them. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. In relation to the Crown appeal against sentence, the Court considered the sentencing judge's assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The Court found that the sentence, while lenient, was not manifestly inadequate, and therefore the Crown appeal against sentence was dismissed. The formal orders of the Court were to dismiss both the appeal against conviction and the Crown appeal against sentence.

Orders