Regina v Watkins - [2000] NSWCCA 76

CITATION: REGINA v WATKINS [2000] NSWCCA 76

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60429/99

HEARING DATE(S): 16 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 March 2000

PARTIES :

Kenneth William Watkins - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Hulme J at 33; Dowd J at 34

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/61/0156

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Latham DCJ

COUNSEL :
W Washington - Appellant
M C Marien - Crown

SOLICITORS: Mark Rumore - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Miscarriage of justice - Verdict unreasonable and unsupported by evidence - Where complainant's evidence wrong in relation to when offences committed and where significant feature of occasion in which offences committe wrong - Where trial Judge directed jury to return same verdict on every count - No direction that each count could only relate to one event - Possibility of conviction for matter not charged

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Sentences quashed; 3. Direct that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered in respect of each count of the indictment.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60429/99

SHELLER JA
HULME J
DOWD J

Wednesday, 29 March 2000

REGINA v Kenneth William WATKINS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1    SHELLER JA: This appeal was heard on 16 March 2000. At the end of the argument, the Court made orders allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions and directed that a judgment and verdict of acquittal be entered in respect of each count in the indictment.
2 The appellant was indicted on six counts under s61D of the Crimes Act 1900 of sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years without her consent knowing she was not consenting thereto. In respect of each charge the complainant was the same person. The offences were charged in the indictment as having occurred between 1 May 1983 and 31 October 1984 when the complainant was aged between 10 and 12. The appellant was tried before Latham DCJ and a jury of twelve at Mudgee District Court. The trial began on 24 March 1999. On 25 March the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all six counts. On 23 July 1999, Judge Latham sentenced the appellant on each count to a concurrent sentence of two years penal servitude comprising a minimum term of 18 months and an additional term of six months. The minimum term began on 23 July 1999. The appellant has been in continuous custody since that date.
3    The appellant appealed against all six convictions. The ground of appeal was that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
4    The test to be applied by this Court in determining this appeal on the ground relied on is whether the Court thinks, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied…

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 Watkins

Details

AGLC: Regina v Watkins [2000] NSWCCA 76
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date: 29 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Watkins, the appellant, Watkins, was convicted of indecent assault and procuring a child to commit an indecent act. The appellant sought to appeal on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The complainant’s evidence was inconsistent in relation to the dates of the offences, and there were discrepancies between the complainant’s account of the events and the other evidence given by witnesses. The trial judge directed the jury to return the same verdict on every count without directing them that each count could only relate to one event. The court of appeal was asked to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable and whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury were appropriate.
The court found that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were inappropriate and amounted to a misdirection. The judge’s direction that the jury return the same verdict on every count meant that the jury may have been led to convict the appellant for matters that were not charged. The court found that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge’s direction to the jury was a significant factor in this conclusion. The court also found that the complainant’s evidence was wrong in relation to when the offences were committed and that a significant feature of the occasion in which the offences were committed was also wrong. The court concluded that these errors made it impossible to be confident that the appellant was guilty of the offences as charged.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The court found that the misdirection of the trial judge was a significant factor in the unreasonableness of the verdict. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed in relation to the charges and that each count can only relate to one event. The court also noted that the discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence meant that it was impossible to be confident that the appellant was guilty of the offences as charged. The court found that the verdict was unreasonable and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The convictions were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted.

Orders