R v Smith [No 3] - [2011] NSWSC 728

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [No 3] [2011] NSWSC 728
Hearing dates: 29 June 2011
Decision date: 30 June 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: BUDDIN J
Decision:
Application refused

Catchwords: Criminal law - application for directed verdict - Crown case circumstantial in nature - applicable principles
Cases Cited: Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207
R v El Masri (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 1327
R v JM (2010) 202 A Crim R 465
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina
Darren Paul Smith
Representation: Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
D Yehia SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh (Solicitors, Director of Public Prosecutions)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2009/50517

Judgment

Introduction

The accused, Darren Paul Smith, is charged with having murdered Russell Lyons at Fairfield on 3 June 1995. At the end of the Crown case, Ms Yehia SC who appears on behalf of the accused, made an application that I direct the jury to acquit the accused. On 30 June 2011 I refused the application. What follows were my reasons for doing so.

The deceased's body was located in a carpark at the end of a laneway which runs off Smart Street in Fairfield at about 8.40 am on 3 June 1995. According to Dr Ellis, who conducted the post-mortem, his death was caused by head injuries with alcohol toxicity said to have been a contributing factor. The deceased was fully clothed but his shoes and wallet were missing. Despite a lengthy police investigation, it was not until 7 June 2009 that the accused was arrested. Indeed, he only came to the attention of investigating police when a DNA profile matching his profile connected him to the crime scene. His DNA profile was only entered on the national database in 2008 following his apprehension in Queensland on a trivial matter. Following analysis, a match was made between his profile and DNA material that was located inside each shoe of a pair of Adidas running shoes. The shoes themselves were located on 5 June 1995 a short distance from where the deceased's body was found. Also found on the shoes was blood staining which matched the deceased's DNA profile. A DNA profile matching that of the accused was also located in the area of the rear right pocket of the jeans which the deceased was wearing when his body was discovered. The Crown case is that the accused killed the deceased during the course of robbing him of his shoes and wallet. The Crown also asserts that the Adidas shoes had been worn by the accused but had then been discarded when the accused realised that the deceased's blood has found its way onto them as a result of the fatal attack.

The Crown alleges that some hours prior to the discovery of the deceased's body, the accused had attempted to steal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Smith [No 3] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 728
Decision Date: 30 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith [No 3] involved the appellant, Smith, who was charged with the crime of murder. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the prosecution presented a circumstantial case against Smith, relying on evidence that did not directly link him to the crime scene but rather inferred his involvement based on a series of events and findings. The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove Smith's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore sought a directed verdict in his favour.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court had to determine whether the evidence, when considered as a whole, could lead a properly directed jury to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles governing the admissibility and weight of circumstantial evidence, particularly in criminal cases where the presumption of innocence applies.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in its judgment, meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court held that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to support a conviction. The court emphasised that in cases where the evidence is circumstantial, the jury must consider the chain of events and whether the inference of guilt is the only reasonable conclusion. The court found that the evidence presented a clear and unbroken chain of events that pointed to Smith's guilt, and that a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that Smith was the perpetrator. The court thus dismissed the defence's application for a directed verdict.

The final orders of the court were that the trial would proceed, and Smith was found guilty of murder. The court's judgment underscored the importance of the jury's role in evaluating circumstantial evidence and the principles that guide such evaluations in criminal proceedings.

Orders