Scicluna v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 120

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: SCICLUNA v R [2007] NSWCCA 120

HEARING DATE(S): 6 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Adams J at 25; Howie J at 1

DECISION: By majority appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - 4 counts - knowingly take part in manufacture of methylamphetamine - supply methylamphetamine - possession of precursor - possession of prohibited weapon - failure by trial judge to direct Not Guilty verdicts on 2 counts - whether appropriate for trial judge to direct jury that it could take into account findings in respect of one charge when determining any other

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Criminal Appeal Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v Amanatidis (2001) 125 A Crim R 89
R v Micallef (2002) 136 A Crim R 127

PARTIES: Stephen Joseph Scicluna (Appl)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1559

COUNSEL: S M McNaughton (Appl)
D C Frearson SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appl)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/1131

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hock DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 October 2005

2006/1559

McCLELLAN CJ AT CL
ADAMS J
HOWIE J
MONDAY 30 APRIL 2007

SCICLUNA, Stephen Joseph v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL and HOWIE J: We have received the considerable advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Adams J. We gratefully adopt his account of the evidence in the trial.

2 The parties conducted the trial on the basis that the jury verdicts would be the same for each count. The trial judge indicated to the jury, in the usual way, that the counts were separate charges and that there was no legal requirement that the jury bring in the same verdict for each count on the indictment. The trial judge, however, did tell the jury that they could take into account their findings in respect of one charge when determining another. Her Honour also told them that there was no logical reason why they would not find the same verdict on the first three counts on the indictment because the Crown’s evidence was the same for those counts.

3 The Judge said this:

Because the separate allegations contained in the charges are related, some of the factual findings that you must make based on the evidence will be relevant to a consideration of all of the charges or of some of the individual charges. A finding of fact made in respect of one charge may influence your determination of another charge. Putting count four to one side because it really stands on its own, and I will come to that when I set out the elements to you, but if you found that the accused did not possess the methylamphetamine in the bedroom then that finding can be…

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 Scicluna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scicluna v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 120
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 120
Decision Date: 30 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Scicluna v The Queen involved the appellant's conviction on four counts, including knowingly participating in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, supplying methylamphetamine, possession of a precursor, and possession of a prohibited weapon. The trial judge had declined to direct the jury that a not guilty verdict on one count could be considered in relation to any other counts. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether this failure constituted an error warranting a new trial.

The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury that findings on one count could influence decisions on other counts was an error. Secondly, if such an error had occurred, whether it was significant enough to necessitate a new trial. The court had to consider whether the failure to provide the appropriate direction could have influenced the jury's decision-making process and, if so, whether this warranted overturning the conviction.

The High Court found that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury constituted an error, as it did not allow the jury to consider the interrelationship between the charges. This error was deemed significant, as it could have influenced the jury's assessment of the appellant's guilt on the various counts. The court held that the error was not merely procedural but affected the fundamental fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court determined that a new trial was necessary to ensure that the appellant received a fair hearing on all counts.

The High Court quashed the appellant's convictions and ordered a retrial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed to consider all evidence and charges in a coherent manner, particularly in cases involving multiple related offences. This decision underscores the necessity for trial judges to provide comprehensive and accurate directions to juries to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in criminal trials.

Orders