1. Leave to appeal against conviction granted under s.5(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
2. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - armed robbery - Appellant convicted of two armed robberies and acquitted of third count - appeal against conviction on first count only - Crown relied upon coincidence evidence - relevance of acquittal on third count - whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported - verdicts not inconsistent - verdict on first count not unreasonable and is supported by evidence - appeal dismissed
APPEAL - Appellant alleged to have confessed to crime on first count after trial but before appeal - Crown relies on evidence of admission on appeal - whether relevant on appeal to s.6(1) proviso or order for retrial under s.8 Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Hamer, "The Expectation of Incorrect Acquittals and the 'New and Compelling Evidence' Exception to Double Jeopardy" [2009] Crim LR 63
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Livai Raumakita (Appellant) Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Mr CJ Smith (Appellant) Ms N Noman (Respondent) Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Appellant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2009/4126
Decision under appeal
Date of Decision:
2010-04-23 00:00:00
Before:
Keleman SC DCJ
File Number(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 Raumakita v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Raumakita v R [2011] NSWCCA 126
Case
[2011] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Raumakita v R involved the appellant, Raumakita, who had been convicted of two counts of armed robbery but acquitted on a third count. Raumakita appealed solely against the conviction on the first count, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. The Crown's case relied heavily on coincidence evidence, which Raumakita challenged. Additionally, the appellant alleged that he had confessed to the crime after the trial but before the appeal, and this confession was sought to be introduced by the Crown on appeal. Raumakita contended that this evidence was irrelevant for the purposes of section 6(1) proviso or for an order for a retrial under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
The court considered whether the verdict on the first count was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, taking into account the acquittal on the third count. The court also examined the relevance of the alleged post-trial confession in the context of the appeal provisions. The court held that the verdict on the first count was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence. The coincidence evidence was deemed sufficient to sustain the conviction. Furthermore, the court found that the alleged confession was not relevant for the purposes of section 6(1) proviso or for ordering a retrial under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, as it did not pertain to the evidence presented at trial.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against the conviction on the first count. The verdict was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence, and the alleged confession was deemed irrelevant for the purposes of the appeal provisions. The acquittal on the third count did not render the conviction on the first count unreasonable or unsupported.