Regina v Taylor - [2002] NSWSC 610

Reported Decision:
129 A Crim R 146

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Taylor [2002] NSWSC 610

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70074/01

HEARING DATE(S): 29/04/02, 30/04/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Michael James Taylor

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr T. Hoyle SC - Crown
Mr Scragg - Accused

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - DPP
Legal Aid Cimmission of NSW - Accused

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Amendment Self-defence Act (2001)

CASES CITED: R v Hull 16 NSWLR at 390and 391
Munday v Gill & Ors 44 CLR 39
R v Howard (1992) 29 NSWLR 242 at 247

DECISION: I accept the Crown submission that the Crimes Amendment Self-defence Act 2001 has no application to this trial.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

WHEALY J

TUESDAY 30 April 2002

70074/01 - REGINA v Michael James TAYLOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The facts relating to the present issue are not in dispute. The trial against the accused has reached the stage where it is now in its sixth week. Shortly addresses will be given by counsel. It is imperative that a decision be given quickly on this issue.

2 On 5 October 2001 the accused came before the Court at what is commonly described as an arraignment hearing. This hearing was conducted by Justice David Kirby. Mr Peter Dare appeared for the Crown. He presented an indictment to the Court, and the accused was thereupon arraigned. The accused was asked whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty to a charge that on 25 July 2000 at Prospect in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Adam Scott.

3 This charge is set out in a document headed Indictment, which bears the date 26 September 2001, and is signed by Mr Peter Dare on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

4 The accused pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the accused was put on the country for trial, pursuant to the terms of s 88 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a date was fixed for the hearing of the trial of 11 March 2002, with an estimate of three weeks.

5 The parties were asked to address the Arraignments Judge about the issues, and to indicate whether there would be a need to have pre-trial issues determined. The note that has been kept by the Judge's Associate indicates that Mr Elks and the Crown agreed that there were no pre-trial issues, and the jury were to be called the first day. There was a query however over the possible issue of provocation. His Honour continued bail on the same terms as were applicable as at that date.

6 My first involvement with the matter was on 27 February 2002. As I had been nominated as the judge who was likely to hear the case, I arranged to have the matter mentioned on that date. Mr Hoyle of Senior Counsel appeared for the Crown,…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: Regina v Taylor [2002] NSWSC 610
Case: [2002] NSWSC 610
Decision Date: 30 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Taylor is a case heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Criminal Division, presided over by Justice Whealy. The case involves Michael James Taylor, who stands accused of murdering Adam Scott on 25 July 2000 at Prospect in New South Wales. Taylor has pleaded not guilty to the charge. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crimes Amendment Self-defence Act 2001 applied to the case. This statute codifies the law on self-defence and came into effect on 22 February 2001, but contains a transitional provision that exempts offences for which proceedings were instituted before the commencement of the Act.

Justice Whealy ruled that the new legislation does not apply to this trial. The court determined that the proceedings were instituted when the accused was arraigned on 5 October 2001, prior to the commencement of the new Act. The court found that the presentation of a "fresh" indictment on 25 and 26 March 2002, charging Taylor with the same offence, did not constitute the institution of new proceedings. The judge emphasized that the transitional provision in the Act was clear and unambiguous, and thus the trial should proceed under the pre-existing common law on self-defence.

Justice Whealy concluded that the new legislation did not apply to this trial and that the court should leave the issues of self-defence and provocation to the jury. The court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the transitional provision in the Crimes Amendment Self-defence Act 2001, and the established practices in relation to the institution of criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The final orders of the court were to proceed with the trial under the common law on the issue of self-defence.

Orders