Legal Research
Cases
R v Robinson

R v Robinson

Case [2000] NSWCCA 59 31 March 2000

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 111 A Crim R 388

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v ROBINSON [2000] NSWCCA 59

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60328/98

HEARING DATE(S): 06/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v Dennis Noel ROBINSON

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA at 1; Barr J at 12; Smart AJ at 80

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/41/0065; 98/21/2061

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: PG Berman
Appellant: JS Stratton

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: TA Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - whether verdicts of guilty consistent with verdicts of acquittal on other counts - whether verdicts 'merciful' - whether verdicts compromised - whether verdicts reasonable

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 ss 110, 112

CASES CITED:
R v PKS, Court of Criminal Appeal, 1.10.98, unrep.
R v Hamilton (1993) 68 A Crim R 298.
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439.
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348.
R v Hunt [1968] 2 QB 433.
R v Kirkman (1987) 44 SASR 591.
Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44.
R v Hauke, Court of Criminal Appeal, 27.3.95, unrep.
R v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178.

DECISION: See para 79

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60328/98

DC 97/41/0065, 98/21/2061

FITZGERALD JA
BARR J
SMART AJ

FRIDAY 31 MARCH 2000

REGINA v Dennis N ROBINSON
JUDGMENT

1   FITZGERALD JA: The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the judgment of Barr J. I propose to confine my remarks to ground 4. I agree that the appeal should be allowed on that ground.
2   Although there is a tension between the appellant’s conviction on counts 1, 2 and 3 and his acquittal on count 4, I agree with Barr J that the verdicts are not inconsistent in the sense in which that description is used in this context. See MacKenzie v R (1996) 190 CLR 348.
3   I also agree with Barr J that, for the reasons he has given, the verdict acquitting the appellant of count 4 cannot be explained as a “merciful” verdict. MacKenzie v R (1996) 71 ALJR 91, 101.
4   However, in my opinion there is no justification for a conclusion that the mixed verdicts were the result of a compromise by the jurors, with some jurors who otherwise would not have voted to convict the appellant on counts 1 to 3 agreeing to do so, contrary to their legal obligations and oaths, in return for those who would otherwise have voted to convict him on count 4 agreeing to an acquittal.
5   It seems to me more probable that the acquittal verdict on count 4 indicates that the jury considered that the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony on that count lacked sufficient cogency for a conviction. In other words, the jury was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt with the complainant’s…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 59
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 59
Decision Date: 31 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robinson involved a criminal trial in the County Court of Victoria, where the defendant was accused of multiple offences including armed robbery, assault, and theft. The prosecution alleged that the defendant, along with others, had committed a series of crimes, including robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. The defence argued that the defendant was not present during the commission of the crimes and did not have any involvement. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on some counts and guilty on others, which led to the question of whether the verdicts were consistent, merciful, compromised, or reasonable.

The court was required to address whether the verdicts were consistent with each other, particularly given that the jury acquitted the defendant on some charges but found him guilty on others. The defence argued that the verdicts were 'merciful' and did not reflect the true facts, while the prosecution contended that the jury's decision was reasonable and should be upheld. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the verdicts were compromised or influenced by any external factors, which could render them invalid.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the verdicts were indeed consistent and reasonable, despite being seemingly contradictory. The court found that the jury had carefully considered the evidence and the applicable legal principles before reaching their decision. The verdicts were not considered merciful, as the jury had acquitted the defendant of certain charges where there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt. The court also concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the verdicts were compromised, and thus they were valid and should stand. The court held that the jury's decision was well within their power and discretion, and there was no basis to overturn the verdicts.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the jury's verdicts, confirming the defendant's convictions on some counts and acquitting him on others. The court emphasised the importance of respecting the jury's role in criminal trials and their ability to make complex decisions based on the evidence presented. The defendant was sentenced accordingly, and the court's decision was final, with no grounds for appeal on the issue of the verdicts.

Orders