Legal Research
Cases
R v Taufua

R v Taufua

Case [1999] NSWCCA 205 30 July 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Taufua [1999] NSWCCA 205

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60006/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18 May, 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v David Uaine TAUFUA

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Barr J at 2; Carruthers AJ at 3-56

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 86/31/0533

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL: J S Stratton for the Appellant
D N Howard for the Crown

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy for the Appellant
C K Smith for the Crown

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against conviction whether Jones v Dunkel direction should have been given against the accused or the Crown or at all.

ACTS CITED: S. 97 of the Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Regina v Buckland (1977) 2 NSWLR 452
Dilosa v Latec Finance Pty Ltd (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 557 at 581-582.
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217
Regina v John Paul Newland (1997) 98 A Crim R 455.
Regina v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563
Regina v Su [1997] 1 VR 1
Cf v Yaari (1995) 101 CCC (3d) 401
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 517

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal out of time be granted; Appeal upheld; Conviction and sentence quashed and a new trial ordered.

- 29 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60006/98

JAMES J
BARR J
CARRUTHERS AJ
FRIDAY, 30 JULY, 1999

REGINA v David Uaine TAUFUA

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: I agree with Carruthers AJ.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60006/98

JAMES J
BARR J
CARRUTHERS AJ
FRIDAY, 30 JULY, 1999

REGINA v David Uaine TAUFUA

JUDGMENT

2 BARR J: I agree with Carruthers AJ.
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60006/98

JAMES J
BARR J
CARRUTHERS AJ
FRIDAY, 30 JULY,1999

REGINA v David Uaine TAUFUA

JUDGMENT

3 CARRUTHERS AJ : The applicant David Uaine Taufua was brought to re-trial after a successful appeal to this Court in relation to a conviction at the Newcastle District Court on a single count of armed robbery on 25 November 1997.
4 The re-trial was held at the Newcastle District Court before Judge Freeman DCJ, and on 2 December 1997 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On the following day the applicant was sentenced to a minimum term of four years and nine months to commence on 1 December 1997, together with an additional term of one year and eight months. The precise terms of the count under section 97 of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended are as follows:

“for that he on 21 July 1994 at Mayfield in the State of New South Wales, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, did rob Lynette Ruth Barber of certain property, namely, a sum of money and a quantity of cigarettes.”

5 As grounds of appeal against conviction were not filed until 7 April 1998 the applicant needs leave to appeal against the conviction. The reason for lateness was concisely…

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 Taufua

Details

AGLC: R v Taufua [1999] NSWCCA 205
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 205
Decision Date: 30 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taufua involved the appellant, who was convicted of murder. The appeal was against his conviction, focusing on the direction given by the trial judge in accordance with the decision in Jones v Dunkel. The Supreme Court of Victoria was the court that heard the appeal. The appellant contended that the direction should not have been given at all, or if it should have been given, it should have been against the Crown rather than against the accused.

The central legal issue was the proper application of the Jones v Dunkel direction in the context of the appellant's trial. The direction refers to the need for caution in cases where the only evidence against the accused comes from an accomplice. The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied this principle and whether the direction should have been given against the accused or the Crown. Another aspect was whether such a direction was appropriate in this case at all.

The court held that the trial judge should have given the Jones v Dunkel direction, but it should have been against the Crown rather than the accused. The court reasoned that the direction was necessary to address the potential unreliability of the accomplice's evidence. The judge's failure to give the direction against the Crown was a significant error that warranted a new trial. The court also found that the direction should have been given in this case due to the nature of the evidence presented by the accomplice. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The final orders of the court were to quash the conviction and order a new trial for the appellant. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying the Jones v Dunkel direction to ensure a fair trial, particularly when the evidence against the accused primarily comes from an accomplice.

Orders