Sloan v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 279

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Sloan v R [2015] NSWCCA 279
Hearing dates: 20 August 2015
Date of orders: 04 November 2015
Decision date: 04 November 2015
Before: Bathurst CJ   at [1]
Price J   at [2]
Beech-Jones J   at [3]
Decision:
(1)   The Appellant be granted leave to raise ground 1 of the appeal; and
(2)   The Appeal be dismissed.
Catchwords: CONVICTION APPEAL – armed robbery – masked offenders – offenders’ discarded clothes nearby – stocking worn over face of one offender – DNA testing of offenders’ clothes – applicant’s DNA found on stocking – whether conviction unreasonable – whether inference arose that applicant’s DNA deposited while wearing stocking over head – whether possibility of indirect transference – whether reasonable alternative hypothesis could account for presence of DNA – evidence strongly pointed to applicant depositing DNA on stocking during robbery – conviction not unreasonable – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 33B, s 97(2), s 154A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1), s 6
Cases Cited: - Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193
- Chamberlain v R (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; 153 CLR 521
- Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28; 88 ALJR 779
- M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
- Morris v R [1987] HCA 50; 163 CLR 454
- Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573
- SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
- W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ashley Dwayne Sloan – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms T. Smith – Applicant
D.L. Carroll – Respondent
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent

File Number(s): 2012/337181
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

25 July 2014

Before:

Arnott DCJ

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by Beech-Jones J and with his Honour’s reasons.
PRICE J: Having made my own independent assessment of the evidence, I agree with the reasons and orders proposed by Beech-Jones J.
BEECH-JONES J: On 25 June 2012 the Rosemeadow Totalisator Agency Board (“TAB”) outlet was the subject of an armed robbery by two offenders who escaped in a stolen motor vehicle.
On 10 March 2014 the appellant, Ashley Sloan, and his co-accused, Leroy Thorne, were arraigned before a jury panel in the District Court on two charges arising out of that armed robbery, namely one count of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and one count of allowing themselves to be carried in a car they knew had been taken without the consent of the owner contrary to s 154A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Mr Thorne was also arraigned on a count of threatening to use an offensive weapon with intention to prevent his and…

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 Sloan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sloan v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 279
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 279
Decision Date: 04 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sloan v The Queen, the applicant appealed against his conviction for armed robbery, arguing that the conviction was unreasonable due to the evidence regarding the presence of his DNA on a stocking worn over the face of one of the masked offenders. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal centred on the interpretation and application of the test for determining whether a conviction is unreasonable, as established in previous case law.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the inference that the applicant's DNA was deposited on the stocking during the robbery was unreasonable. The court considered whether the possibility of indirect transference of the DNA could undermine the reliability of this inference. Additionally, the court examined whether there was a reasonable alternative hypothesis that could account for the presence of the applicant's DNA on the stocking. The applicant argued that there was a significant chance his DNA could have been transferred indirectly, possibly by coming into contact with the stocking at a different time or place.

The court found that the evidence strongly pointed to the applicant depositing his DNA on the stocking during the robbery. The presence of the discarded clothes of the offenders nearby, along with the applicant's DNA on the stocking, supported the inference that the applicant was one of the offenders. The court held that there was no reasonable alternative hypothesis that could account for the presence of the DNA, and the possibility of indirect transference did not make the conviction unreasonable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction as reasonable.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction. The applicant's arguments were found to be insufficient to overturn the conviction based on the evidence presented.

Orders