Legal Research
Cases
Riley v Tasmania

Riley v Tasmania

Case [2007] TASSC 61 16 August 2007

Appeal

Unreasonable or Insupportable Verdict

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2007] TASSC 61

CITATION: Riley v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 61

PARTIES:  RILEY, Galvin Gordon
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 28/2006
DELIVERED ON:  16 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  21 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and enquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Particular grounds – Unreasonable or insupportable verdict – Where evidence circumstantial – Whether reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
Criminal Code (Tas), ss13(1) and 157(1).
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [966]
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and enquiry after conviction – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances including miscarriage – Misdirection and non-direction – Whether "lies direction" or similar direction should have been given - Crown did not rely on lies or post-offence conduct to prove guilt.
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234, distinguished.
R v Dat Tuan Nguyen (2001) 118 A Crim R 479, referred to.
Dhanhoa v R (2003) 217 CLR 1, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [958]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  M J Brett and T Jago
             Respondent:  J N Perks
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 61
Number of paragraphs: 46

Serial No 61/2007
File No CCA 28/2006

GALVIN GORDON RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
BLOW J
TENNENT J

16 August 2007

Orders of the Court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Serial No 61/2007
File No CCA 28/2006

GALVIN GORDON RILEY v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

UNDERWOOD CJ
16 August 2007

Introduction

The appellant has brought this appeal against his conviction for the murder of James Andrew Walley who died from a single rifle shot wound fired on 10 January 2005. The notice of appeal relies upon three grounds that can be shortly stated:

(1)The verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory because the jury ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about whether the discharge of the rifle was the result of a voluntary and intentional act.
(2)The learned trial judge erred by failing to give the jury a "lies' direction" with respect to two alleged lies told by the accused.
(3)The learned trial judge erred in directing the jury to ignore intoxication when considering what the appellant ought to have known pursuant to the Criminal Code, s157(1)(c).

The material facts

The Crown case was entirely circumstantial. In the early hours of the morning of 10 January 2005, on Cape Barren Island, the deceased was shot with a .22 calibre rifle. He died after being airlifted to hospital. The shooting occurred near a house at 18 Dam Road, Cape Barren Island. This house was occupied by Julie Spotswood. For…

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 [2007] TASSC 61
Case: [2007] TASSC 61
Decision Date: 16 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riley v Tasmania involved an appeal against conviction for a serious criminal offence. The respondent, Riley, was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Tasmania for an offence under the Tasmanian Criminal Code. Riley sought an appeal on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence presented against him. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it on the evidence presented, particularly considering that there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, given the circumstantial evidence. The court was required to assess whether, in light of the evidence, a reasonable person could have found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider whether there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence that made the jury's verdict unreasonable. The court examined the evidence presented at the trial, the arguments made by both parties, and the jury's decision-making process.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, after reviewing the evidence, found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable. The court identified that there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence which had not been adequately considered by the jury. The evidence, though circumstantial, was not of such a compelling nature that it excluded every other reasonable hypothesis, including the appellant's innocence. Consequently, the court concluded that no reasonable person could have found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented. As such, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders