Legal Research
Cases
Smillie v Tasmania

Smillie v Tasmania

Case [2017] TASCCA 26 24 November 2017

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Evidence

Type to search within this case.

[2017] TASCCA 26

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Smillie v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 26

PARTIES:  SMILLIE, Adrian Wayne
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 392/2014
DELIVERED ON:  24 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 October 2016, 30 August 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Matters relating to proof – Standard of proof – Directions to jury – Reasonable doubt – Particular cases – Far fetched or fanciful doubt distinguished – Examination and testing of doubt.

R v Dookheea [2017] HCA 36; RWB v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 147, 202 A Crim R 209, followed.
Graham v The Queen [2000] TASSC 153, 116 A Crim R 108; Smart v Tasmania [2013] TASCCA 15, distinguished.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2717]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Murder and wounding – Global sentence of 21 years' imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years – Not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K Baumeler (30 August 2017 only)
             Respondent:  A R Jacobs
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2017] TASCCA 26
Number of paragraphs: 145

Serial No 26/2017
File No CCA 392/2014

ADRIAN WAYNE SMILLIE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
24 November 2017

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 26/2017
File No CCA 392/2014

ADRIAN WAYNE SMILLIE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
24 November 2017

Two men were stabbed during an incident at Devonport on 25 December 2012. One of them, Benjamin Maxwell, died from his wounds. The other, Ashley Stott, survived. The appellant, Adrian Smillie, was charged with murdering Mr Maxwell and wounding Mr Stott. The two charges were tried together. The jury found him guilty of both charges. Estcourt J convicted him on both charges, sentenced him to 21 years' imprisonment, and ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served 12 years of that sentence. This is an appeal against those convictions and that sentence. The appellant has argued that the convictions should be quashed and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
At the trial, the Crown case was essentially as follows. Mr Stott was living at a unit in a group of units in Croft Avenue, Devonport. The appellant had parked his vehicle in the forecourt of the group of units. An altercation developed, involving Mr Maxwell, Mr Stott and the appellant. During that altercation the appellant stabbed Mr Maxwell with a knife 18 times to the chest and arms, stabbed Mr Stott four times to his back, and stabbed him to the left arm. The Crown did not contend that the appellant intended to kill Mr Maxwell,…

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 Smillie v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Smillie v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 26
Case: [2017] TASCCA 26
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Smillie v Tasmania concerned an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Smillie, argued that the trial judge’s directions to the jury on the standard of proof, specifically concerning reasonable doubt, were inadequate and misleading. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt constituted a misdirection, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe. This involved an examination of how the concept of reasonable doubt should be explained to a jury, particularly in distinguishing it from doubts that are merely far-fetched or fanciful, and the proper method for testing or examining such doubts.

The Full Court held that the trial judge’s directions were flawed. While acknowledging that a jury is entitled to reject fanciful or far-fetched doubts, the Court found that the judge’s language had the potential to unduly influence the jury’s assessment of the evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that the onus rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that a doubt, if reasonable, must be given effect, regardless of whether it might be considered fanciful by some. The Court concluded that the misdirection was significant enough to warrant quashing the conviction.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders