1 THE COURT: Daryl Francis Suckling was convicted by a jury on 18 July 1996 of the murder of Jodie Marie Larcombe on or about 27 December 1987 at a place unknown in the State of New South Wales. He was sentenced to penal servitude for life pursuant to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900. The appellant appeals from his conviction and seeks leave to appeal from his sentence. 2 In 1986 and 1987 the deceased, Jodie Marie Larcombe, then aged 21 years was a prostitute living and working in the St Kilda area of Melbourne. She was a regular user of illegal drugs, including heroin. She was last seen by family in mid-November 1987 and by her friends just before Christmas of that year. She had been released from Pentridge Gaol, Victoria, on 22 December 1987. Nothing has been seen or heard of her since except insofar as the evidence in this case tended to prove that the appellant had made her acquaintance and killed and buried her. Searches of banking, government and hospital records throughout Australia and New Zealand from the date of her disappearance until the date of the trial do not disclose any record of her. It was the Crown case that the appellant had abducted and murdered her. 3 The appellant admitted that he had an association with Ms Larcombe in late 1987 to which he referred in his unsworn statement to the jury. The following brief account is taken in part from that statement. The appellant said that in early October 1987 he took up…
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 Suckling
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Suckling [1999] NSWCCA 36
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Daryl Francis Suckling was convicted by a jury on 18 July 1996 of the murder of Jodie Marie Larcombe on or about 27 December 1987. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered eight grounds of appeal, none of which succeeded. The appellant had been charged with the murder in 1989, but the charge was dropped for lack of evidence. The appellant was again charged in June 1994. The case against the appellant relied largely on circumstantial evidence and inculpatory statements made by the appellant. The appellant argued that the statements were fabricated and unreliable. The Court considered that the trial judge had properly directed the jury as to the weight to be given to the statements and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt. The appellant also argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court found no merit in these grounds of appeal. Finally, the appellant argued that he should not have been sentenced under s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Court found that the sentence was properly imposed. The appeal was dismissed.