Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1] Campbell J at [14] Weinstein J at [22]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against convictions;
(2) Dismiss the appeal against convictions;
(3) Grant leave to appeal against sentence;
(4) Dismiss the appeal against sentence;
(5) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (‘Act’) and on the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(c) and (e) of the Act, the portions identified at Annexure A to these orders of the reasons for judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Sampson v R [2023] NSWCCA 239, are not to be published or disclosed, save that the judgment including those portions can be provided to:
(a) the applicant;
(b) counsel and solicitor for the applicant and the Crown (including the Director of Public Prosecutions and her officers);
(c) the officer in charge of the investigation into the matters subject of the judgment, Detective Inspector Matthew Clarke;
(d) the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
(6) Pursuant to s 7 of the Act and on the grounds referred to in s 8(1)(c) and (e) of the Act, there is to be no publication of any evidence, submissions, document or information in the proceedings that would identify, or tend to identify, the witness referred to as “RS” in the judgment.
(7) Pursuant to ss 11 and 12 of the Act, orders 5 and 6 apply throughout the Commonwealth for a period of 30 years from the date of these orders.
(8) Until further order, seven days’ notice is to be given to the solicitors for the parties and the Crown Solicitor of NSW of any application made by a non-party to access the Court file.
(9) Until further order, all affidavits read, and any document filed, served or tendered in connection with applications for non-publication and/or suppression in the proceedings before this Court, be treated as confidential in the Court file, and placed in a sealed envelope, only to be opened on the order of a judge of this Court.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – coincidence evidence – whether evidence of a previous conspiracy to commit a similar offence was properly admitted as coincidence evidence – whether dissimilarities “undercut” the improbability of the events having occurred coincidentally – significant probative value of coincidence evidence – probative value substantially outweighed prejudicial effect – evidence properly admitted as coincidence evidence – appeal dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against conviction – whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – judge alone trial – circumstantial case – no rational inference available other than guilt – appeal dismissed
CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge failed to advert to the fact that the sentence imposed on the…
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 Sampson v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sampson v The King [2023] NSWCCA 239
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 239
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Sampson v The King was brought by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for offences related to a conspiracy to commit a serious crime. The appellant contested the admissibility of coincidence evidence, the reliability of the verdict, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the lower court’s decisions. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the coincidence evidence was properly admitted and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider the cumulative effect of the sentences on parole eligibility.
The court found that the coincidence evidence, which related to a previous conspiracy to commit a similar offence, was properly admitted. The court reasoned that the dissimilarities between the two conspiracies did not significantly undercut the improbability of the events occurring coincidentally, and the evidence had substantial probative value. Despite the prejudicial effect, the court concluded that this did not outweigh the probative value. Furthermore, the court held that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence, particularly in the context of a judge-alone trial where the circumstantial evidence left no rational inference other than the appellant's guilt. The court also found no error in the sentencing judge's consideration of parole eligibility, noting that the cumulative sentences did not result in the appellant serving more than 75% of his effective head sentence before parole eligibility.
In light of the court's findings, the appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the lower court's decisions, affirming both the admissibility of the coincidence evidence and the reliability of the verdict. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the sentencing judge's failure to consider the impact on parole eligibility. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal in its entirety.