Smith v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 64

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: SMITH v R [2013] NSWCCA 64
Hearing dates: 11 March 2013
Decision date: 27 March 2013
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Slattery J at [92]
Bellew J at [93]
Decision:
Leave granted to appeal in respect of the first ground of appeal.
The appeal with respect to the first ground of appeal is allowed.
The verdict of guilty, entered on 7 July 2011 against the appellant quashed and in lieu thereof, there should be entered a verdict of acquittal in favour of the appellant.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - murder - circumstantial Crown case - body found in pool of blood - evidence of earlier altercation - whether actions of appellant caused deceased's death - scenario consistent with innocence not excluded by Crown case - jury verdict unreasonable and not able to be supported having regard to the evidence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Carney v R; Cambey v R [2011] NSWCCA 223
M v R [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Picken v R [2007] NSWCCA 319
R v Kanaan [2005] NSWCCA 385; 157 A Crim R 238
R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 20
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Darren Paul Smith - Appellant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
P Ingram SC - Crown
S Odgers SC - Appellant
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent Crown
B Sandland - Legal Aid NSW - Appellant

File Number(s): 2009/50517
Decision under appeal

Citation:

[2011] NSWSC 1082

Date of Decision:

2011-09-16 00:00:00

Before:

Buddin J

File Number(s):

2009/50517

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

The appellant was tried before Buddin J and a jury in the Supreme Court at Sydney between 30 May and 7 July 2011. The indictment presented at trial pleaded a single count that on 3 June 1995 at Fairfield he murdered Russell Lyons. The count pleaded an offence contrary to s18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for life.

On 7 July 2011 the jury found the appellant guilty of murder on that count. On 17 August 2011 Buddin J sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years, commencing 30 April 2010 and expiring 29 April 2022, with a balance of term of 6 years expiring 29 April 2028.

On 16 September 2011 a Notice of Intention to Appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant. Thereafter, two extensions of that notice were granted. On 8 November 2012 a Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal against Conviction was filed. Two grounds of appeal were notified:

Ground 1: "The verdict was unreasonable".

Ground 2: "The trial judge erred in the direction to the jury with respect to the witness Mr Cross".

The…

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 Smith v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Smith v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 64
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 64
Decision Date: 27 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Smith v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant was found guilty of the murder of an individual whose body was discovered in a pool of blood. The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on evidence of an earlier altercation between the appellant and the deceased, and other circumstantial evidence. The primary issue before the court was whether the actions of the appellant directly caused the deceased's death. The court also considered whether the scenario consistent with the appellant's innocence was excluded by the Crown's case.

The court examined the evidence presented by the Crown and the appellant's defence. The Crown argued that the appellant's actions were the cause of death, while the appellant maintained their innocence. The court concluded that the scenario consistent with the appellant's innocence was not excluded by the Crown's case. The jury's verdict was found to be unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The court held that the appellant's conviction for murder could not be sustained based on the evidence presented.

The court found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The scenario consistent with the appellant's innocence was not excluded by the Crown's case, and therefore, the appellant's conviction for murder could not stand. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The orders of the court reflect the need for a fair and just resolution of the case based on the evidence presented, ensuring that the appellant's rights are protected and that the verdict is supported by the evidence.

Orders