Application for enquiry subsequent to conviction - whether doubt or question as to guilt - 'sense of unease or disquiet' as to convictions - appeal to CCA against convictions on grounds of fresh evidence and convictions unable to be supported by the evidence or unreasonable - matters of fact on appeal remitted by CCA to a single judge of court of trial - necessity to determine issues - whether enquiry subsequent to conviction should be deferred until after appeal determined - applicant elects to abandon any ground of appeal covered by enquiry - enquiry directed.
I direct that an Enquiry be conducted by a prescribed person in accordance with s.474E(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 70048 of 2001
GREG JAMES, J.
THURSDAY 28 JUNE 2001
REGINA v. RONALD JAMES SUEY
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant Ronald James Suey was convicted, having been found guilty by a jury after a trial in the District Court of New South Wales, of some nine indictable offences. Counts one and two were charges, first, that he possessed an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, and, second, that he committed the specially aggravating break and enter offence provided for by s.112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. Counts three to nine involved charges firstly of abduction, and otherwise of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. All of such charges were said to have been committed in relation to a young person who for the purposes of this judgment and later proceedings, shall be described only by the initials LT.
2 The barest summary of the events said to have given rise to the applicant's conviction, is that he and three others had gone one night in November 1996, to a remote country community household with a shotgun, either, on his account to buy drugs, or on the Crown case, to commit armed robbery of the householder, a person who it was believed, to be a drug dealer. On their arrival, the householder was not present, a person Steven Canfell was.
3 It appears to be the case that at one or other door of the house, a person said to be the applicant gave his name and sought entry to effect some sort…
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 Suey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Regina v Suey [2001] NSWSC 543
Case
[2001] NSWSC 543
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Regina v Suey arose in the context of an application for an enquiry subsequent to conviction. The applicant, having been convicted, sought to challenge the conviction on the basis of a sense of unease or disquiet as to the guilt. The case was heard by a court that had to decide whether such a sense justified an enquiry subsequent to conviction. Additionally, the applicant had previously appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) against the convictions, which were based on the grounds of fresh evidence and the contention that the convictions could not be supported by the evidence or were unreasonable. The CCA had remitted certain matters of fact to a single judge of the court of trial, necessitating the determination of these issues. The central legal issue before the court was whether the enquiry subsequent to conviction should be deferred until after the appeal was determined, particularly given the applicant's election to abandon any grounds of appeal covered by the enquiry.
The court deliberated on whether to proceed with the enquiry given the ongoing appeal. It considered the implications of allowing an enquiry while an appeal was pending, which could potentially disrupt the appellate process. Ultimately, the court determined that it was necessary to conduct the enquiry to resolve the issues of fact that had been remitted by the CCA. The applicant's decision to abandon any grounds of appeal covered by the enquiry reinforced the court's conclusion that the enquiry should proceed, as it would not interfere with the appellate process in a manner that could prejudice the outcome of the appeal. The court found that the sense of unease or disquiet expressed by the applicant warranted the holding of an enquiry subsequent to conviction.
The court directed the enquiry to proceed, emphasising that the applicant's election to abandon certain grounds of appeal did not preclude the court from addressing the issues that necessitated the enquiry. The court's decision to proceed with the enquiry reflected a careful balance between the applicant's right to challenge a conviction and the need to respect the appellate process. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of resolving factual matters that had been highlighted by the CCA, ensuring that any doubts or questions about the applicant's guilt could be properly addressed. The court's decision to proceed with the enquiry subsequent to conviction was based on the need to address the specific issues that had been identified and remitted by the CCA, while also considering the applicant's rights and the integrity of the appellate process.