Raju v The Queen - [2010] NSWCCA 38

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Raju v R [2010] NSWCCA 38

HEARING DATE(S): 3 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Howie J at 118; Johnson J at 119

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence - appeal dismissed - CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - miscarriage of justice - leave to appeal declined

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193
Norris v R [2007] NSWCCA 235
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124
Zaphir v R [2009] NSWCCA 124

PARTIES: Kaniappa Raju (Appellant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2365

COUNSEL: J Manuell SC (Appellant)
D Arnott SC/N Noman (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2005/2365

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bell J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 December 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: NSWSC 1418

2005/2365

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HOWIE J
JOHNSON J
THURSDAY 4 MARCH 2010

RAJU, Kaniappa v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant, Kaniappa Raju, was convicted following a trial with a jury of the murder of his wife, Aruna Verma. He appeals against that conviction.

2 The appellant was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. He has abandoned an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. He appeals his conviction on four grounds. He firstly submitted that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The second ground is concerned with the failure of the Crown to call a witness, Anthony Whittal. The third ground is concerned with the fact that the jury were not informed of the appellant’s earlier acquittal of a charge of attempted murder. In the fourth ground he argued that the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice because of the way in which the jury was “effectively invited to speculate on the significance” of an exhibit in the trial.

History of proceedings

3 The appellant has been in custody in relation to this matter since 17 November 2004 when he was arrested in the Solomon Islands. He was extradited to Australia on 8 February 2005. Upon arrival in Sydney he was charged with the attempted murder and murder of the deceased. The attempted murder was alleged to have been committed on or about 5 May 2002 and the murder on 2 June 2002.

4 There have been three trials. The appellant’s first trial commenced on 6 October 2006 but was aborted on 19 October 2006 due to the unavailability of witnesses from the Solomon Islands. The second trial commenced on 4 July 2007. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the charge of attempted murder but was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of murder. The third trial on the charge of murder commenced on 24 October…

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 Raju v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Raju v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 38
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 38
Decision Date: 4 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Raju v The Queen, the appellant sought to challenge the decision of the trial judge, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable in light of the evidence presented. The appellant had been convicted of various charges including drug trafficking, and the appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the verdict reached by the jury was so unreasonable that it should be set aside, or if the jury had a proper basis in the evidence for their decision. Additionally, the appellant argued that there had been a miscarriage of justice and sought leave to appeal on that ground.

The court considered the evidence presented at the trial and the reasoning of the trial judge in relation to the verdict. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion and that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the relevant legal principles. The court held that the jury's verdict was open to them based on the evidence before them, and that there was no basis to interfere with the verdict as being unreasonable or insupportable. Furthermore, the court found no grounds for a miscarriage of justice, and declined the appellant's application for leave to appeal.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with the verdicts of juries, particularly when the evidence supports the jury's decision. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and that the jury had been properly instructed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the appellant's conviction and sentence remain as originally determined by the trial judge.

Orders