Regina v Stewart - [1999] NSWCCA 119

CITATION: REGINA v. STEWART [1999] NSWCCA 119

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60473 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 19 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 May 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
Kevin John STEWART

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 21; Greg James J at 2; Smart AJ at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/31/0260

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: M.G. Sexton, SC.
Appellant: R.D. Cavanagh/A. Moen

SOLICITORS: Crown: C.K. Smith
Appellant: Many Rivers Aboriginal Legal Service

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Appeal - s.6(1) & (2) - role of jury - whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

ACTS CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Regina v. Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53
M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Jones v. The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Fleming v. The Queen [1998] HCA 68
Gipp v. The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1012

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

STEWART -6-
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60473 of 1998 CORAM: DUNFORD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
SMART, AJ.
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY 1999

REGINA v. KEVIN JOHN STEWART
JUDGMENT
1 DUNFORD, J: I will ask Greg James, J. to give the first judgment. 2 GREG JAMES, J: On 18 June 1998 the appellant was convicted by his Honour Judge Freeman in the District Court of New South Wales on two counts of aggravated break and enter offences after guilty verdicts returned by a jury. The first count included an allegation of intent to commit a felony, the second an allegation that the break and enter was coupled with actual stealing. The appellant was sentenced on each count to a minimum term of 12 months penal servitude to commence on 11 January 1999 and to expire on 10 January 2000, and an additional term of three years to commence on 11 January 2000 and to expire on 10 January 2003. His Honour also dealt with the prisoner in respect of the breach of certain recognisances imposing a fixed term of six months expiring on 10 January 1999. 3 The appellant appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that "the jury verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory". At this hearing the ground was described as asserting that the verdicts were unreasonable and not in accordance with the evidence. Thus, it is submitted, acquittal should be entered. The ground is expressed this way by way of reference to the criteria in s.6(1) and (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, no doubt in deference to what has been said in this court in Regina v. Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53 by the Chief Justice at paragraphs 43-44. 4 The written submissions provided by the appellant's counsel describe that ground by reference to what appears in M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494:-

"In most cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which a jury ought also to have experienced. It is only where a jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence…

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 Stewart

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stewart [1999] NSWCCA 119
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 119
Decision Date: 19 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Stewart was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Stewart, appealed against his conviction for murder. The prosecution case was that Stewart had killed a man during a violent altercation. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unreasonable or could not be supported considering the evidence presented. The Court had to assess whether the jury properly applied the principles of criminal liability and whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to reach a guilty verdict.

The High Court examined the role of the jury in criminal cases, noting that juries are responsible for determining the facts and applying the law as directed by the judge. The Court emphasised that the jury's verdict should not be overturned unless it is palpably unsafe or unsatisfactory. In this instance, the Court found that the jury had carefully considered the evidence and followed the judge's directions. The evidence, which included witness testimonies and forensic evidence, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Stewart was guilty of murder. The Court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable and could be supported by the evidence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming Stewart's conviction for murder. The Court found that the jury's verdict was properly based on the evidence and that the appeal did not meet the threshold for overturning the verdict. The final orders of the Court were to maintain the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The Court did not order a retrial, as it was satisfied that the jury had reached a just and lawful decision based on the evidence presented.

Orders