Regina v Sampson - [2003] NSWCCA 66

CITATION: REGINA v. SAMPSON [2003] NSWCCA 66

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 19 November 2002; Thursday 5 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Greg James J at 3

DECISION: Verdict and judgment of acquittal entered. Sentence quashed. Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - conviction - appeal - verdict unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence - relevant principles.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Chamberlain (No. 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
M (1994) 181 CLR 487
Martin [2002] NSWCCA 290
Bikic [2002] NSWCCA 227
Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
MFA [2002] HCA 53
MacKenzie (1996) 90 A. Crim. R. 468
Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
Rose [2002] NSWCCA 455

PARTIES :
REGINA v.
SAMPSON, Brett Herbert

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60103 of 2002; No. 60269 of 2002

COUNSEL: Crown: D.C. Frearson
App: P. Boulten

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: J. Bettens & Co.

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/31/0348

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Patten, DCJ.

No. 60103 of 2002
No. 60269 of 2002

MEAGHER, JA.
WOOD, CJ. at CL.
GREG JAMES, J.
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003

REGINA v. BRETT HERBERT SAMPSON

REASONS FOR Judgment

1 MEAGHER, JA: I agree with Greg James, J.

2 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Greg James J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

3 GREG JAMES, J: This appeal by Brett Herbert Sampson from his conviction on one count of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, an offence against s.33 of the Crimes Act 1900, was allowed by the court on 5 December 2002. A verdict and judgment of acquittal was entered. The sentence was quashed and the Crown appeal against the inadequacy of sentence was dismissed.

4 That order was made at that time, having regard to the period during which the appellant had been in custody, the imminent expiry of the law term, and the difficulties in giving full reasons at that time. In a short judgment given that day, I indicated that those reasons were reserved and would be given later.

5 I now express my reasons for having reached the view which supported the conclusion to which the court came on 5 December 2002 that the conviction and verdict should be set aside as unreasonable or such as cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – see Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s.6(1).

6 The case put at trial by the Crown was that the appellant had maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon one Paul Votano with the intent of causing that harm. It was the Crown case that the offence was committed by the appellant by punching the victim in the face with a beer glass intending to cause grievous bodily harm to him by doing so. It therefore became necessary for…

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 Sampson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Sampson [2003] NSWCCA 66
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 66
Decision Date: 25 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Sampson, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of assault and sentenced to imprisonment. The case was heard on appeal in the Supreme Court of the State. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence presented at the trial.

The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the jury had failed to consider certain crucial elements of the case. The court was required to assess the weight of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the evaluation of a verdict's reasonableness. The court had to determine whether there existed any error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury or if the jury had misapplied the evidence in reaching their decision.

The Supreme Court, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence and the legal principles, concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence. The court found that the jury had properly considered all relevant factors and had applied the law correctly in arriving at their decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of allowing juries to make their determinations based on the evidence presented, as long as their decision-making process adhered to the applicable legal principles.

Orders