Slater v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 310

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Slater v R [2015] NSWCCA 310
Hearing dates: 16 November 2015
Date of orders: 16 November 2015
Decision date: 08 December 2015
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Beech-Jones J at [44]
R S Hulme AJ at [47]
Decision:
(1)   To the extent it is required, leave is granted to appeal against conviction.
(2)   The appeal against conviction on Counts 2 to 8 is allowed.
(3)   The convictions and sentences on Counts 2 to 8 are quashed.
(4)   Verdicts of acquittal are entered on each of Counts 2 to 8.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against convictions – Appellant convicted of a number of property offences – Crown case based entirely on CCTV footage – jury invited to compare person depicted in CCTV footage with photographs of Appellant – significant difficulties with quality of CCTV evidence – Crown concedes errors in trial and that verdicts were unreasonable – Court holds that verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence – appeal allowed, verdicts and sentences quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Pitkin v The Queen [1995] HCA 30; 80 A Crim R 302
R v Harker [2004] NSWCCA 427
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Richard James Slater (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms HL Cox (Appellant)
Mr E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT Limited (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/51339
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

28 May 2014

Before:

Maiden SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/51339

Judgment

JOHNSON J: The Appellant, Richard James Slater, was convicted following a trial before his Honour Judge Maiden SC and a jury at the Newcastle District Court of offences of aggravated break, enter and steal under s.112(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 2), being carried in a conveyance knowing it to have been taken without the owner’s consent contrary to s.154A(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (Count 3) and five counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to s.192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Counts 4-8). Count 1, on which the Appellant was acquitted, was another allegation of aggravated breaking, entering and stealing.
The Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for these offences.
In written submissions provided to the Court for the purpose of the appeal, the Crown acknowledged that a number of errors and deficiencies were apparent from the trial. At the hearing of the appeal on 16 November 2015, the Crown joined with counsel for the Appellant in submitting that the appropriate course was to quash the convictions and enter verdicts of acquittal on each count.
The Crown’s approach to the appeal was both fair…

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 Slater v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Slater v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 310
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 310
Decision Date: 08 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slater, the appellant, appealed against his convictions for property offences, which were based on CCTV footage presented by the Crown. The jury was directed to compare the person seen in the CCTV footage with photographs of Slater. However, the quality of the CCTV footage was problematic, and the Crown acknowledged errors in the trial, conceding that the verdicts were unreasonable. The central legal issue was whether the convictions were supported by the evidence, particularly given the challenges with the quality of the CCTV footage. The court found that the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The verdicts and sentences were quashed, and verdicts of acquittal were entered. The decision underscores the importance of the quality of evidence, particularly in cases relying heavily on CCTV footage, and the necessity for convictions to be supported by reliable evidence.

Orders