Legal Research
Cases
Sandy v The State of Western Australia

Sandy v The State of Western Australia

Case [2024] WASCA 109 17 September 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   SANDY -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2024] WASCA 109
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   5 APRIL 2024
DELIVERED          :   17 SEPTEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACR 77 of 2023
BETWEEN:   NICOLE SUZETTE SANDY
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   FIANNACA J
File Number            :   INS 13 of 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted after trial of murder - Whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, because there must have been a reasonable doubt about the element of intent for murder - Whether the appellant should only have been found guilty of manslaughter

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 26, s 27, s 28(3), s 279(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	J Gullaci SC and W C Yoo
Respondent	:	B F Stanwix

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Aboriginal Legal Service of WA Ltd
Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; (2013) 88 ALJR 101
Birdsall v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASCA 79; (2019) 54 WAR 418
Clarke v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 14
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; (2022) 274 CLR 651
Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28; (2014) 88 ALJR 779
GAX v The Queen [2017] HCA 25; (2017) 91 ALJR 698
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Morris v The Queen [1987] HCA 50; (1987) 163 CLR 454
Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; (2020) 268 CLR 123
R v Baden‑Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 242 CLR 491
Schmidt v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 201
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Turner v The State of Western Australia [2021] WASCA 158
Wongawol v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 222; (2011) 42 WAR 91
Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12; (2016) 256 CLR 482

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

The appellant appeals against conviction.
On 16 February 2023, the appellant was convicted, after a trial before Fiannaca J and a jury, of one count which alleged that on 15 November 2020, at Balga, the appellant murdered Coral Lee Sandy, contrary to s 279 of the Criminal Code (WA) (the Code).
On 25 May 2023, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with a minimum non‑parole period of 18 years.
The appellant relies upon one ground of appeal. The ground alleges that the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or…

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 Sandy v The State of Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Sandy v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 109
Case: [2024] WASCA 109
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction by the appellant, Sandy, who was convicted of murder following a trial. The appellant contested the conviction, arguing that the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, because there must have been a reasonable doubt about the element of intent for murder. Alternatively, the appellant submitted that he should only have been found guilty of manslaughter. The State of Western Australia opposed the appeal, maintaining that the verdict of guilty of murder was appropriate based on the evidence presented during the trial.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or could not be supported, having regard to the evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there was a reasonable doubt about the element of intent for murder. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the appellant should have been convicted of manslaughter instead of murder, given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was not unreasonable or incapable of being supported, having regard to the evidence. The court found that there was no reasonable doubt about the element of intent for murder, as the evidence established that the appellant had deliberately and intentionally caused the death of the victim. The court rejected the argument that the appellant should only have been found guilty of manslaughter, concluding that the circumstances of the case supported a conviction for murder. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders