Riley v Tasmania - [2020] TASCCA 1

[2020] TASCCA 1

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Riley v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 1

PARTIES:  RILEY, Cameron James
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  1307/2019
DELIVERED ON:  21 February 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  14 November 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J, Geason J, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Adequacy of summing-up – Trial judge's duty to put defence case – Extent of obligation when summarising evidence – Summing-up adequate – No miscarriage of justice – Appeal dismissed.

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6, 295 ALR 624; Castle v The Queen [2016] HCA 46, 259 CLR 449, applied.
R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355; Majok v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 160, referred to.
Aust Digest Criminal Law [3162]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  F Cangelosi
             Respondent:  D G Coates SC
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2020] TASCCA 1
Number of paragraphs: 27

Serial No 1/2020
File No 1307/2019

CAMERON JAMES RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
GEASON J
MARTIN AJ
21 February 2020

Orders of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 1/2020
File No 1307/2019

CAMERON JAMES RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
21 February 2020

This appeal concerns the adequacy of a trial judge's summing-up to a jury and in particular, the summary of the defence case. I agree with Geason J, that the summing-up by Pearce J was fair and balanced and that his Honour's references to the case for the defence were sufficient in light of the issues on the trial.
At the conclusion of the summing-up, just before the jury retired to deliberate, the learned trial judge asked counsel (not the same defence counsel representing the appellant on the appeal) whether there was anything that they wished his Honour to raise with the jury. Counsel expressly stated that there was not. Defence counsel was well positioned to assess the fairness and adequacy of his Honour's summary of the defence case and the overall impartiality of the summing-up. Of course, if there is any deficiency or misdirection in a summing-up to the jury, counsel should point that out to the trial judge before the jury retires to deliberate so that it may be rectified there and then. The response of defence counsel in seeking or declining to seek further directions at the conclusion of a trial judge's summing-up is a factor that an appellate court may take into account. It may be regarded as a cogent consideration in determining whether the summing-up is defective as asserted on appeal or whether some inadequacy or misdirection in a summing-up is so significant that there has been a miscarriage of justice: La Fontaine v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 62 per Barwick CJ at 72; Lambert & Stokes v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 76

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 Riley v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Riley v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 1
Case: [2020] TASCCA 1
Decision Date: 21 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Riley v Tasmania*, the appellant, Riley, appealed his conviction for a criminal offence. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the summing-up provided by the trial judge to the jury.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the trial judge had adequately put the defence case to the jury when summarising the evidence. Riley contended that the summing-up was insufficient and that this failure amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

The Court, comprising Wood J, Geason J, and Martin AJ, considered the extent of a trial judge's duty in summarising evidence, particularly in relation to presenting the defence's narrative. The judges concluded that the summing-up, when viewed in its entirety, fairly and accurately reflected the evidence presented and the arguments advanced by the defence. They found that the trial judge had fulfilled their obligation to ensure the jury understood the defence's position.

Consequently, the Court determined that no miscarriage of justice had occurred and dismissed the appeal.

Orders