Legal Research
Cases
Scott v R

Scott v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 296 6 December 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v R [2017] NSWCCA 296
Hearing dates: 28 July 2017
Date of orders: 06 December 2017
Decision date: 06 December 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
McCallum J at [243];
Bellew J at [244]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – murder – victim stabbed in course of fight – conflicting evidence from heavily intoxicated witnesses – change of defence counsel during trial – plea of guilty to manslaughter during trial – refusal by Crown to accept plea – application to discharge jury refused on five occasions – whether refusal to discharge jury gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – no clear evidence of when stabbing of deceased took place – appeal dismissed.
Cases Cited: AL v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 34
Aslett v R [2009] NSWCCA 188
Crofts v The Queen [1996] HCA 22; 186 CLR 427
Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15; 201 CLR 414
Maric v The Queen (1978) 52 ALJR 631
Mikael v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 294
R v Ball (1961) SR NSW 37
R v Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336; 132 A Crim R 371
R v Knape (1965) VR 469
R v Owen (unreported, NSWCCA, 7 July 1988)
R v Scott (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 462
R v Scott (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 678
TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
The Queen v Glennon [1992] HCA 16; 173 CLR 592
Trieu v R [2012] NSWCCA 169
Walker v R [2014] VSCA 177
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Vincent Scott – Applicant
Regina – Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
C Loukas SC/Mr B Dean/Ms R Khalilizadeh – Applicant
M Cinque SC – Crown
Solicitors:
L Gittani – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown

File Number(s): 2013/104881
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Scott (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 678

Date of Decision:

29 May 2015

Before:

Wilson J

File Number(s):

2013/104881

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

Michael Vincent Scott (the applicant) appeared for trial before Wilson J and a jury on 10 March 2015. He was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the murder of Riley Dehn (the deceased) on 5 April 2013 at Cessnock, New South Wales.

The applicant was convicted of murder on 10 April 2015. On 29 May 2015 he was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years and an additional term of 6 years. He will be eligible for parole on 5 April 2031.
The applicant has appealed against the conviction on two grounds:

Ground 1 – Her Honour erred in failing to discharge the jury following the cumulative effect of both the admission…

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 v R

Details

AGLC: Scott v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 296
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 296
Decision Date: 06 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent against a conviction for murder. The respondent was accused of fatally stabbing the victim during a fight. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the refusal by the Crown to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter during the trial led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court had to consider if the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, given the conflicting testimonies from heavily intoxicated witnesses. The trial also faced complications with the respondent changing defence counsel during the proceedings.

The court found that there was no clear evidence regarding when the stabbing occurred, leading to considerable uncertainty in the testimonies. Despite the conflicting accounts, the jury's verdict was deemed reasonable and supported by the evidence presented. The court further ruled that the refusal to discharge the jury, despite multiple applications, did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The change in defence counsel, though disruptive, did not prejudice the respondent to a degree that would warrant a new trial. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and was adequately supported by the evidence, dismissing the appeal.

The High Court held that the trial process did not contain significant errors that would warrant overturning the conviction. The conflicting evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case did not reach a level of unfairness that would constitute a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders