Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Stones

Regina v Stones

Case [2000] NSWCCA 341 29 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. STONES [2000] NSWCCA 341 revised - 30/08/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60554 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 3 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
STONES, Lee

JUDGMENT OF: Foster AJA at 1; Dunford J at 2; Greg James J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0223

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Latham, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: R.D. Cogswell, SC.
App: C.V. Jeffreys (Sol.)

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: C.V. Jeffreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - verdict asserted to be unsupported by the evidence - identification - reliability - role of jury - no basis for doubt.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Fleming (1998) 158 ALR 379
Giam (1999) 104 A. Crim. R. 416
M (1994) 181 CLR 487
Jones (1997) 191 CLR 439
Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60554 of 1999 CORAM: FOSTER, AJA.
DUNFORD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

TUESDAY 29 AUGUST 2000

REGINA v. LEE STONES
JUDGMENT
1   FOSTER, AJA. I agree with the judgment of Greg James, J.
2   DUNFORD, J: I agree with Greg James, J. 3   GREG JAMES, J: The appellant was convicted on two counts after pleas of not guilty following a trial in the Sydney District Court on 19 July 1999. 4   Count one was:-

"That he on 29 April 1998 at Turramurra in the State of New South Wales, being then armed with an offensive weapon, to wit, a knife, did rob John Thearle of certain property, namely, a quantity of jewellery and a sum of money."

5   Count two was:-

"That he on 29 April 1998 at Turramurra in the State of New South Wales, did allow himself to be carried in a conveyance, namely, motor vehicle bearing registration number GKR 603 knowing that the conveyance was taken without the consent of Alexander Johnston, the person in lawful possession of the said conveyance."

6 The maximum penalty for the armed robbery offence was 20 years penal servitude and for the motor vehicle offence, five years penal servitude. Both sentences are now to be as understood as sentences of imprisonment consequent on the passing of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999. 7 On 26 August 1999, the appellant was sentenced as follows:-

"Count 1 Minimum term of four years and six months penal servitude to commence on 5 January 1999 and to expire on 4 July 2003.

Additional term of two years and six months to commence on 5 July 2003 and to expire on 4 January 2006.

Count 2 Fixed term of one year penal servitude to commence on 5 January 1999 and to expire on 4 January 2000."

8   The appeal is brought on the ground that:-

"There has been a miscarriage of justice in that the verdicts of the jury:-

(a) are unsafe and unsatisfactory…

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 Stones

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stones [2000] NSWCCA 341
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 341
Decision Date: 29 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Stones, the respondent was convicted of several serious criminal offences. The conviction followed a trial in which the respondent was identified by a single eyewitness. The High Court of Australia was called upon to assess the appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury's decision was open to question in light of the reliability of the eyewitness identification and the weight of the overall evidence. The court had to consider whether there was a basis for doubting the correctness of the jury's verdict.

The court began by acknowledging the well-established principle that the jury is the exclusive arbiter of the facts. It noted that the jury is generally afforded a high degree of deference, and its verdict should not be lightly overturned. The court emphasised that an appellate court should only intervene if there is no basis upon which the jury could reasonably have reached its conclusion. In assessing the reliability of the eyewitness identification, the court considered the circumstances under which the identification was made, including the opportunity to observe, the witness's level of attention, and the accuracy of any prior description. However, the court also stressed that the jury was entitled to consider these factors and weigh them against the totality of the evidence presented. The court concluded that there was no basis for doubting the correctness of the jury's verdict, as the evidence was sufficient to support the identification and the other elements of the crimes charged.

Given the reasoning above, the appeal was dismissed. The court reaffirmed the importance of the jury's role in criminal trials and the limited scope for appellate courts to interfere with the jury's findings. The decision underscores the principle that a jury's verdict should not be overturned unless it is palpably unsafe or unsatisfactory. As a result, the respondent's convictions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders