Regina v Noeline Anderson - [2002] NSWCCA 194

CITATION: Regina v Noeline ANDERSON [2002] NSWCCA 194

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60109/00

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday, 1 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 May 2002

PARTIES :

The Crown
Noeline Anderson (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 50; Bell J at 51; McClellan J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70048/01

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ireland J

COUNSEL : G I O Rowling (Crown)
Noelene Anderson (Appl in person)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction and sentence - murder - defence of provocation - incorrect directions by trial judge as to the meaning of provocation contrary to s 23(2)(b) Crimes Act - incorrect suggestion by trial judge that the burden of proof was on the appellant - diminished impact of correct written directions

LEGISLATION CITED: Listening Devices Act 1984
Crimes Act 1900 NSW s 23(1), s 23(4)

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Conviction recorded and sentence passed in the court below quashed; 3. Order a new trial.

60109/00

MEAGHER JA
BELL J
McCLELLAN J
WEDNESDAY, 1 MAY 2002

REGINA v Noelene ANDERSON

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN J: The appellant was convicted by a jury of the murder of her husband, Robert Keith Grosse at Rocky Point between 30 June 1995 and 31 July 1995. She appeals her conviction and seeks leave to appeal her sentence.

2 The Crown case was that the appellant and the deceased were married and had lived together in a house at Rocky Point. The deceased was a bricklayer and the house was constructed on land owned by the appellant. The relationship between them had been turbulent and at various times the deceased had left the home to live in a caravan park. The deceased had a criminal record, including convictions for assaulting the appellant. During one of their physical exchanges the appellant had bitten the deceased's ear. The Crown also alleged the appellant had, by means of false documents, secured a divorce from the deceased, of which he was unaware.

3 At some time before 1 July 1995, being the date upon which the Crown says the deceased was killed, the Crown alleged that the appellant decided that she would prefer a new partner and determined that it was necessary for her to kill the deceased.

4 On 30 June 1995 the deceased worked as usual for his employer. He was a reliable worker and the evidence disclosed that he drank little. On the following day, 1 July, the appellant drove the deceased to work where he appeared to be obviously unwell and unable to walk unaided. He was not drunk. After discussion about taking him to Wyong Hospital, the appellant took the deceased away. The Crown alleges that the appellant took the deceased home where she took advantage of his weakened stage, strangled him with a piece of cord or twine and buried him under a concrete slab under the house.

5 The appellant gave different accounts of the events of that day…

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 Noeline Anderson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Noeline Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 194
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 194
Decision Date: 1 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Noeline Anderson, was convicted of murder and sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal to the Court of Appeal challenged both the conviction and the sentence. The deceased, a 27-year-old man, died from a single stab wound to the chest following an altercation with the appellant, who had been in a relationship with the deceased. The appellant claimed that the deceased had threatened her with a knife and that she acted in self-defence, leading to the fatal injury.

The appeal raised several legal issues, primarily concerning the trial judge's directions on the defence of provocation. The appellant argued that the trial judge incorrectly defined provocation and suggested that the burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the defence. The court had to determine whether these errors were so significant that they affected the safety of the conviction. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge's written directions, which were correct, sufficiently mitigated the impact of the oral directions.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's oral directions on provocation were indeed incorrect and prejudicial. However, the court found that the impact of these errors was mitigated by the trial judge's written directions, which were accurate and provided to the jury. The court concluded that the trial judge's error did not affect the safety of the conviction. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The Court of Appeal also considered the sentence, finding no grounds for appeal against it. The appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders