Spencer v The Queen - [2003] NTCCA 1

Spencer v R[2003] NTCCA 1
PARTIES:BRYCE JABALTJARI SPENCER
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:CA15 of 2001
DELIVERED:  9 January 2003
HEARING DATES:  19 and 20 September 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Mildren, Bailey JJ and Priestley AJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M Shaw QC and I Read
Respondent:  R Wild QC and R Noble
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:           B
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  17

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Spencer v The Queen[2003] NTCCA 1

No. CA15 of 2001
BETWEEN:

BRYCE JABALTJARI SPENCER

Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: Mildren, Bailey JJ and Priestley AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 9 January 2003)
Mildren J:

The appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of a murder committed at Alice Springs on 3 September 1998. The appellant appeals his conviction on a number of grounds, not all of which were argued on the appeal. To the extent that leave to appeal is required by s 410(b) of the Criminal Code, leave has already been granted by the Chief Justice.
The principal grounds urged upon us related to the directions which the learned trial judge gave to the jury in relation to intent and intoxication, but before dealing with the grounds of appeal it is necessary to briefly summarize the Crown case and the case presented to the jury on behalf of the appellant.
The Crown case
The appellant and the deceased, who are both Aboriginal, were in a relationship together as husband and wife. At the time of the deceased's death, they lived in a bush camp in the scrub near Alice Springs. There were a lot of other Aborigines camped nearby. During the day, a lot of alcohol had been consumed by those in the camp, including both the deceased and the appellant. The group had been consuming a number of five litre casks of wine. At some stage during the evening, an argument broke out between the appellant and the deceased. The argument related to accusations made by the deceased that the appellant had been going with another woman or women. The deceased also used quite a bit of bad language and was very agitated. At about 9 p.m. a witness, Amy Nambulla (Amy) who had been sleep, was woken by screams coming from the camp occupied by the deceased and the appellant. The deceased at this stage was lying on the ground. The appellant asked her to come and have a look and said that he had killed his wife. Amy, after looking at the deceased, according to her evidence, went into town and called the police and an ambulance. According to other witnesses, the ambulance was called by a part Aboriginal person who was present at the time. In any event, an ambulance arrived near 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 Spencer v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Spencer v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 1
Case: [2003] NTCCA 1
Decision Date: 9 January 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Spencer v The Queen*, the appellant, Spencer, was convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions and prior bad character. A further issue was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the issue of self-defence were adequate, and whether the overall conduct of the trial had been unfair to the appellant.

The Court considered the provisions of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) and relevant common law principles regarding the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions and bad character. It was held that the admission of such evidence in this case was prejudicial and had deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The Court also found that the directions on self-defence were insufficient.

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

Orders