Legal Research
Cases
Richardson v The Queen

Richardson v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 218 27 September 2013

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Richardson v R [2013] NSWCCA 218
Hearing dates: 17 September 2013
Decision date: 27 September 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Latham J at [95]
Beech-Jones J at [105]
Decision:
In relation to the conviction appeal, appeal dismissed.
In relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - admission of evidence for non-propensity purpose - evidence relevant to motive - evidence accompanied by comprehensive direction to jury not to engage in propensity reasoning - no objection taken at trial - the same evidence relied on by defence in its case - whether evidence had to be established beyond reasonable doubt - no miscarriage of justice - APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - whether treatment of corpse after killing relevant to seriousness of offending - whether excessive weight given to treatment of corpse after death - ground of appeal not made out.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 - s18(1)(a), s81C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s61(1)
Evidence Act 1995 - s97(1)
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Cao v R [2010] NSWCCA 109
FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182
Gebara v R [2012] NSWCCA 107
ES v R (No 1) [2010] NSWCCA 197
KJS v R [2013] NSWCCA 132
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim R 126
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315
Ryan v R [2009] NSWCCA 183
Yang v R [2012] NSWCCA 49; 219 A Crim R 550
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Neal Richardson - Appellant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
Ms N Carroll - Appellant
Ms N Adams SC/Ms JE Davidson - Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
George Sten & CO - Appellant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2010/110783
Decision under appeal

Before:

McCallum J

File Number(s):

2010/110873

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

On 1 November 2011 the appellant was arraigned before McCallum J in the Supreme Court on a charge that between 17 April and 25 April 2010 at a place unknown in the State of NSW, he did murder Kirrilee Nicole Grant (the deceased) contrary to s18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded before her Honour and a jury of twelve. Both manslaughter and murder were left to the jury. On 21 November 2011, the jury retired to consider its verdict. On 23 November 2011 the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the offence of murder.

On 18 May 2012 the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 21 years, commencing 4 May 2010 and concluding 3 May 2031, with a balance of term of 7 years concluding 3 May 2038.

The appellant has appealed against his conviction and has sought leave to appeal against his sentence.

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 Richardson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Richardson v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 218
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 218
Decision Date: 27 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richardson was convicted of the murder of a woman and appealed both his conviction and his sentence. The appeal centred on two main issues: the admission of evidence for a non-propensity purpose and the assessment of the sentence's severity. The evidence in question pertained to the treatment of the victim's corpse after the killing, which was argued to be relevant to the offender's motive rather than his propensity to commit such crimes. The prosecution argued that this evidence was admissible and was accompanied by a thorough direction from the trial judge to the jury to avoid drawing any conclusions about the defendant's character based on this evidence. The defence did not object to the admission of this evidence at trial and, in fact, used it in their case.

The legal issues revolved around whether the evidence needed to be established beyond reasonable doubt and whether its admission led to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the evidence was relevant to the motive and was not being used for propensity purposes. Given that no objection was raised at trial and the evidence was used by the defence, the court found that there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the appellant argued that the treatment of the corpse after death was given excessive weight, impacting the seriousness of the offending. However, the court concluded that this factor was appropriately considered and did not constitute an error of law or a disproportionate sentence.

The appeal against the sentence was also dismissed. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed all relevant factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. The treatment of the corpse was a relevant factor in understanding the gravity of the offence, and its consideration did not lead to an excessive sentence. The appeal was unsuccessful in both aspects, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders