Regina v Galea; Regina v Yeo - [2001] NSWCCA 270

CITATION: Regina v Galea; Regina v Yeo [2001] NSWCCA 270

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60249/00 (Galea); 60031/00 (Yeo)

HEARING DATE(S): 4 April 2001
(Subsequent written submissions closing 15 June 2001)

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Raymond Galea
Regina v Keng Hwee (Kathy) Yeo

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 92; Studdert J at 93

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70048/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Grove J

COUNSEL : Appellant (Galea) - T A Game SC/H K Dhanji
Appellant (Yeo) - P Byrne SC/G A Bashir
Crown - R D Ellis

SOLICITORS: Appellant (Galea) - D J Humphreys
Appellant (Yeo) - Horowitz and Bilinsky
Crown - S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - accessory to murder - joint enterprise - EVIDENCE - criminal law - failure of accused to give evidence - whether Weissensteiner direction appropriate - EVIDENCE - criminal law - character evidence - cross-examination on material not in evidence - discretion to allow - s 192 Evidence Act 1995 - EVIDENCE - criminal law - balancing prejudice against probative value - ss 97, 101 Evidence Act 1995 - EVIDENCE - criminal law - credibility - whether Edwards or Zoneff direction necessary

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Azzopardi v The Queen; Davis v The Queen [2001] HCA 25
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Bozzola (2001) NSWCCA 269
R v Dang (2000) NSWCCA 269
R v Fowler (2000) NSWCCA 142
R v Mai (2000) NSWCCA 517
R v OGD (1997) 45 NSWLR 744
RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620
Stanoevski v R (2001) 177 ALR 285
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

DECISION: Galea: 1) Appeal upheld 2) Conviction quashed 3) New trial ordered; Yeo: 1) Appeal upheld 2) Conviction quashed 3) New trial ordered

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
Nos. 60249/00; 60031/00

STEIN JA

WOOD CJ at CL
STUDDERT J
Tuesday, 17 July 2001

Regina v Raymond GALEA
Regina v Keng Hwee (Kathy) YEO

JUDGMENT

1 STEIN JA:

Introduction

2 Between 8 November 1999 and 4 January 2000 both appellants were tried on indictment for the murder of Christopher Mark Dorrian on or around 7 June 1997 at Lilyfield, New South Wales. They were also tried on the alternative count of accessory after the fact to murder.

3 On 4 January 2000 the jury returned a verdict by which the appellant Yeo was found guilty of murder, and the co-appellant Galea found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder. Galea was found not guilty of murder. On 12 April 2000 Grove J sentenced the appellant Yeo to 24 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. The appellant Galea was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

4 The appeals were heard…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Galea; Regina v Yeo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWCCA 270
Decision Date: 17 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Galea; Regina v Yeo involved two defendants charged with various criminal offences, including murder and being an accessory to murder. The appellants were part of a joint enterprise which included the planning and execution of the murder of two individuals. The appeals concerned the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the appellants' failure to give evidence, the admissibility of certain character evidence, and the necessity of specific jury directions regarding credibility. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the convictions.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge properly directed the jury regarding the appellants' failure to give evidence, whether certain character evidence was admissible, and if specific jury directions were required to address the credibility of the appellants. The court had to assess the trial judge's discretion in allowing cross-examination on matters not in evidence and balancing the probative value of such evidence against any prejudicial effect. The appellants argued that the trial judge's direction on their failure to give evidence was inappropriate and that certain character evidence should not have been admitted. Additionally, they contended that the trial judge should have given specific credibility directions to the jury.

The court held that the trial judge appropriately directed the jury regarding the appellants' failure to give evidence and that the character evidence was properly admitted. The court found that the trial judge's discretion in allowing cross-examination on matters not in evidence was exercised correctly, and the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court also determined that no specific credibility direction was necessary, as the trial judge's general directions to the jury were sufficient. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of the appellants were upheld. The High Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the appellants and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts.

Orders