Scrutton v The Queen - [2019] NTCCA 9

CITATION:Scrutton v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 9

PARTIES: SCRUTTON, Stanley Robert

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL from the SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:CA 11 of 2018 (21458585)
DELIVERED:  18 April 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MATTERS CONNECTED WITH CONDUCT OF DEFENCE – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
Application for an extension of time and leave to appeal – whether forensic evidence concerning bloodstains false, misleading, inconsistent and/or flawed – whether forensic evidence concerning bloodstains inconsistent with prosecution case and guilt – whether trial judge’s direction to jury concerning bloodstains inconsistent with the evidence – whether trial judge wrongly admitted relationship evidence – no satisfactory explanation for delay – no exceptional circumstances or special reasons for delay – no manifest miscarriage of justice – no viable ground of appeal – application to extend time dismissed – application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Criminal Code 1983 (NT) s 406, s 407, s 410, s 417, s 420, s 423, s 426, s 429
Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT) r 86.01, r 86.10, r 86.11, r 86.13, r 86.14, r 86.22, r 86.23
Conway v R (2000) 172 ALR 185, Crabbe v The Queen (1990) 101 FLR 133, Edwards v R [2009] NSWCCA 199, Etchell v R [2010] NSWCCA 262, FDP v R [2008] NSWCCA 317, Green v The Queen (1989) 95 FLR 301, HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334, R v Cornwell (2003) 57 NSWLR 82, R v Gregory [2002] NSWCCA 199, R v Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R 356, R v Quach (2002) 137 A Crim R 345, Stamp v The Queen [2012] NTCCA 15, The Queen v King [2009] VSCA 190, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:Self-Represented
Respondent:  SA Robson
Solicitors:
Applicant:Self-Represented
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  25

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Scrutton v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 9

No. CA 11 of 2018 (21458585)
BETWEEN:

STANLEY ROBERT SCRUTTON

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ, SOUTHWOOD and BARR JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 April 2019)
THE COURT:
[1]On 17 June 2016, the applicant in this matter was found guilty of murder following a trial by jury. On 16 May 2018, almost two years outside the 28 days provided for in s 417(1) of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT), the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal and an application for an extension of time within which to bring that application for leave.
The statutory provisions
[2]Part X, Division 2 of the Criminal Code governs applications for the grant of an extension of time within which to bring an application for leave to appeal, and applications for leave to appeal. The subordinate procedural provisions are found in…

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 Scrutton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Scrutton v The Queen [2019] NTCCA 9
Case: [2019] NTCCA 9
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against their convictions. The central dispute concerned the admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence relating to bloodstains, which the applicants alleged was false, misleading, inconsistent, and flawed, and furthermore, inconsistent with the prosecution's case and their guilt. The applicants also contended that the trial judge had wrongly admitted certain relationship evidence. The matter was heard by Grant CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the forensic evidence concerning bloodstains was improperly admitted or relied upon, whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding this evidence were erroneous, and whether the admission of relationship evidence constituted a misdirection or a miscarriage of justice. The Court was also required to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to grant an extension of time for the appeal, given the applicants' failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Court found that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application and that no exceptional circumstances or special reasons existed to justify an extension of time. Furthermore, the Court concluded that there were no viable grounds of appeal and no manifest miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the application to extend time was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was also dismissed.

Orders