Legal Research
Cases
Scott Alan May v Regina

Scott Alan May v Regina

Case [2012] NSWCCA 111 31 May 2012

Appeal

Conviction

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Misdirection

Manslaughter Alternative

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Scott Alan May v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 111
Hearing dates: 20 October 2011
Decision date: 31 May 2012
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Simpson J at [342]; Harrison J at [417]
Decision:
(1) Appeal against conviction allowed, conviction quashed.
(2) Verdict of acquittal entered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - evidence - whether verdict unreasonable on evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - joint criminal enterprise - whether misdirection in summing up to jury - whether extended joint criminal enterprise alternative should have been left to jury
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - whether misdirection in summing up to jury - whether evidence capable of verifying key witness's account
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - joint criminal enterprise - whether manslaughter alternative should have been left to jury
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 5
Criminal Appeal Rules r 4
Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.5
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 s 19
Evidence Act 1995 Pt 3 Div 7
Listening Devices Act 1984
Surveillance Devices Act 2007
Cases Cited: Conway v R [2002] HCA 2; (2002) 209 CLR 203
Gillard v R [2003] HCA 64; (2003) 219 CLR 1
Handlen v R [2011] HCA 51; (2011) 283 ALR 427
Johns v R [1980] HCA 3; (1980) 143 CLR 108
M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MacAuliffe v R [1995] HCA 37; (1995) 183 CLR 108
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Osland v R [1998] HCA 75; (1998) 197 CLR 316
R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385; (2005) 64 NSWLR 527
R v LK [2010] HCA 17; (2010) 241 CLR 177
R v Mills [1963] 1 QB 522; (1962) 47 Cr App Rep 49
R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195
R v Ngo [2003] NSWCCA 82
R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
R v Taufahema [2006] NSWCCA 152; (2006) 162 A Crim R 152
R v Taufahema [2007] HCA 11; (2007) 228 CLR 232
RR v R [2011] NSWCA 235
SI v R [2007] NSWCCA 181
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott Alan May (Appellant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Mr T Game SC; Mr D Barrow (Appellant)
Mr D Arnott SC; Ms T Smith (Crown)
The Law Practice (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2007/4832
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2008-06-04 00:00:00

Before:

Rothman J

File Number(s):

2007/4832

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: On 7 May 2008, Scott May ("the appellant") was indicted on a charge that on 2 May 2003 at Rozelle he did murder Andrew John Heavens ("the deceased"). As an alternative count he was charged with being an accessory after the fact to the murder of the deceased by Mr Ryan Burnes ("Mr Burnes"). The indictment was an ex officio indictment, the appellant having…

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 Scott Alan May v Regina

Details

AGLC: Scott Alan May v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 111
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date: 31 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Alan May was convicted of the murder of a woman and subsequently appealed the decision. The appeal centred on several legal issues, including the reasonableness of the verdict in light of the evidence presented, the potential misdirection of the jury during the summing up phase, and the correctness of the trial judge's decision not to leave the extended joint criminal enterprise and manslaughter alternatives to the jury. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury, particularly in relation to the joint criminal enterprise charge, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the key witness's account.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found that there was no misdirection. The judge had correctly explained the principles of joint criminal enterprise and ensured the jury understood the necessity of foresight of a criminal act as a basis for the charge. The court also considered the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly in relation to the key witness's account, and concluded that the evidence was capable of supporting the witness's testimony. The court found that the verdict was not unreasonable and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court confirming the conviction. The trial judge's directions to the jury were deemed correct, and the evidence was found to be adequate to support the key witness's account. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable on the evidence, and there was no misdirection in the summing up phase. The court also found that there was no error in not leaving the extended joint criminal enterprise and manslaughter alternatives to the jury. The conviction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders