Regina v A M P Helene - [1999] NSWCCA 203

CITATION: Regina v A M P Helene [1999] NSWCCA 203

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60503/98

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Andrew Mark Phillip Helene

JUDGMENT OF: Ireland J at 1; Kirby J at 2; Carruthers AJ at 66

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/3276

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL: S J Odgers (App)
L M B Lamprati (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Watsons (App)
C K Smith (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE; Directions on the elements; Relating the elements to the evidence; Armed robbery; Joint criminal enterprise; Aiding and abetting; Sentence

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s61, s97(1)

CASES CITED:
Yager v The Queen (1977) 13 ALR 247
Zorad v The Queen (1990) 47 A Crim R 211
Tangye v The Queen (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
Osland v The Queen (1998) 159 ALR 170
Alford v McGee (1951-52) 85 CLR 466
Regina v C (CCA, unreported, 23/05/94)
Regina v Blanch (CCA, unreported, 9/08/94)
R v Lowery & King (No 2) [1972] VR 560
Regina v Vester Fernando & Anor ([1999] NSWCCA 66, unreported, 14/04/99)
Regina v Henry & Ors ([1999] NSWCCA 107, unreported, 18/05/99)

DECISION: Refer para 132

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60503/98
IRELAND J
KIRBY J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday 28 July, 1999

REGINA -v- Andrew Mark Phillip HELENE
JUDGMENT

1   IRELAND J: I agree with Carruthers, AJ and with the orders proposed by his Honour.

**********

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60503/98

IRELAND J
KIRBY J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Wednesday 28 July 1999

REGINA v Andrew Mark Phillip HELENE

JUDGMENT

2   KIRBY J: The point in this appeal is whether a trial Judge is obliged to include in his summing up the elements of the offence (or so many of them as remain in issue), and to relate the evidence to each element. In a trial for armed robbery, the trial Judge neither identified the elements of armed robbery, nor the evidence capable of supporting each element. Moreover, the jury did not have its attention drawn to a significant discrepancy between the evidence of the two complainants, and its relevance to the terms of the indictment.

The First Incident

3   On 29 August 1997, shortly after 11.00 pm, two boys (Michael Deaves and James Koski) were at a telephone booth in Macarthur Square, Campbelltown. Michael Deaves was aged sixteen years. His friend, James Koski, was aged fifteen. They were approached by a group of youths, including the appellant (then aged nineteen years).
4 Two incidents occurred, separated by five or ten minutes. The first incident gave rise to two charges of assault (s 61 Crimes Act 1900). The charge involving Michael Deaves was in these terms:

“(That) on 29 August 1997, at Campbelltown, in the State of New South Wales did assault Michael Stephen Deaves.”

5   There was a second charge, in the same terms, substituting the name of James Phillip Koski for that of Michael Deaves.

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 Regina v A M P Helene

Details

AGLC: Regina v A M P Helene [1999] NSWCCA 203
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 203
Decision Date: 28 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v A M P Helene, the appellant was convicted for his role in an armed robbery as an aider and abettor. The court of appeal was tasked with considering the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury on the elements of the crime, specifically regarding the concept of a joint criminal enterprise and the roles of aiding and abetting. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately relate the elements of the crime to the evidence presented at trial, thereby impacting the jury's understanding and application of the law.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient in terms of defining and applying the elements of the crime of armed robbery as part of a joint criminal enterprise, and whether the judge's directions adequately covered the principles of aiding and abetting. The court examined whether the judge's directions provided a clear framework for the jury to understand the roles and responsibilities of the participants in the criminal activity, and if the judge's explanation of the evidence in relation to these elements was sufficient for the jury to reach a just verdict.

The court found that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on the essential elements of the crime, particularly in relation to the concept of a joint criminal enterprise and the role of an aider and abettor. The court held that while the trial judge provided a general explanation of the principles of aiding and abetting, the directions did not sufficiently relate these principles to the specific evidence presented. The court concluded that this failure to adequately relate the legal principles to the evidence could have led to a miscarriage of justice. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and a re-trial was ordered.

No specific orders were made beyond the quashing of the conviction and the ordering of a re-trial. The court did not address sentencing issues, as the case was remitted for a new trial.

Orders