Regina v Heatley - [2002] NSWCCA 297

CITATION: Regina v Heatley [2002] NSWCCA 297 revised - 04/06/2004

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60086/98

HEARING DATE(S): 27 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 July 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Earl Heatley

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70058/95

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : McInerney J

COUNSEL : Appellant - W.C. Terracini SC
Crown - L. Lamprati

SOLICITORS: Appellant - Mark Lees & Associates
Crown - S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against convictions for murder and malicious wounding - probative value of witnesses' statements to police following leave to cross-examine by prosecutor as unfavourable witnesses - whether convictions unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence - whether there should be a new trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s18, s33, s316(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6, s6(1), s8
Evidence Act 1995, s32, s38, s60
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, s39

CASES CITED:
Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517
Festa v The Queen (2001) 176 ALJR 291
Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594
R v Benecke [1999] NSWCCA 163

DECISION: Appeal allowed.; Convictions quashed.; New trial on all counts.

60086/98

LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Tuesday, 30 July 2002

REGINA v Earl HEATLEY

Judgment

1 THE COURT: Earl Heatley (the appellant) appeals against three convictions at the Central Criminal Court on 13 October 1997.

2 The appellant was arraigned before McInerney J and a jury of twelve at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney on 8 September 1997 upon an indictment containing three counts.

3 The first count was that on 1 October 1994 he murdered Desmond Forrest Clarke Thompson. The second count was that he murdered Paul Heatley. Both these counts were pursuant to s 18 of the Crimes Act, 1900 (the Act). The third count was that he maliciously wounded Thomas Alan Bithel pursuant to s 33 of the Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty to each count.

4 Michael John Stevens was tried jointly with the appellant on one count of concealing a serious offence pursuant to s 316(1) of the Act.

5 On 13 October 1997 the appellant was convicted on all counts and Michael Stevens was acquitted.

6 On 27 February 1998, his Honour sentenced the appellant to penal servitude for life in relation to the conviction on the first count. In relation to the second count the appellant was sentenced to a fixed term of twenty years penal servitude to commence on 6 October 1994 and to expire on 5 October 2014. In relation to the third count the appellant was sentenced to a fixed term of fifteen years penal servitude to commence on 6 October 1994 and to expire on 5 October 2009.

7 Paul Heatley, who is the alleged victim in the second murder count, was the appellant’s brother. Both the appellant and Paul Heatley had served long sentences for serious crime. As at the…

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 Heatley

Details

AGLC: Regina v Heatley [2002] NSWCCA 297
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date: 30 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the convictions of the respondent, Heatley, for the murder of his de facto wife and for maliciously wounding another person with intent to maim or disfigure. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent was convicted following a trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and he appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was dismissed. He now appeals to this Court on the basis that his convictions are unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, and that there should be a new trial.

The central issue before the Court was whether the convictions were unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence, specifically in light of the probative value of the witnesses' statements to police, which were admitted as evidence despite the witnesses being cross-examined by the prosecutor as unfavourable witnesses. The Court had to determine if the admission of these statements, which were subject to significant challenges in cross-examination, was sufficiently reliable to support the convictions. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the overall evidence was sufficient to convict the respondent of the crimes charged.

The Court found that the probative value of the witnesses' statements to police, despite being challenged in cross-examination, was not so low as to render the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory. The admissions made by the respondent in these statements were corroborated by other evidence, and the Court was satisfied that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence as reliable. The Court concluded that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the assessment of the evidence, and that the convictions were safe and satisfactory. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Court.

Orders