Legal Research
Cases
Spiteri-Ahern v R

Spiteri-Ahern v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 56 21 March 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Spiteri-Ahern v R [2022] NSWCCA 56
Hearing dates: 1 November 2021
Date of orders: 21 March 2022
Decision date: 21 March 2022
Before: Meagher JA; R A Hulme J; Davies J
Decision:
(1) Refuse leave to appeal on ground 3 and proposed ground 3A.
(2) Grant leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2 and 4.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – trial by judge alone – where applicant convicted of murder as participant in joint criminal enterprise – where arrangement that applicant pay money to co-participant in return for killing deceased – where trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence and admissions of guilt by applicant – whether verdict unreasonable – whether trial judge’s reasons inadequate – reasons requirement in judge-alone trial under Criminal Procedure Act, s 133(2) – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165(2)

Cases Cited:
Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 40
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Handlen v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 282; [2011] HCA 51
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Wade v R [2018] NSWCCA 85

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Louise Spiteri-Ahern (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Avenell SC (Applicant)
E Balodis (Crown)
Solicitors:
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/180060
Publication restriction:
1. A suppression order was made on 31 August 2017 in relation to the true identity of a Crown witness, together with any evidence, submission, discussion, document or information that might disclose the identity of said witness. The publication of any reference to the witness in this judgment is by way of the pseudonym name ‘Tom Jones’.

2. There is a statutory non-publication order arising under Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A in relation to a matter raised in the evidence of Marco Pehar.
3. A non-publication order was made on 19 September 2019 in relation to the address given for the applicant and her family in the evidence of Constable Daniel Greentree.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2017] NSWSC 1820; [2018] NSWSC 1072

Date of Decision:

21 December 2017

Before:

Rothman J

File Number(s):

2014/180060

Judgment

THE COURT: Pursuant to Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1), the applicant, Louise Spiteri-Ahern, seeks leave to appeal, on the grounds set out…

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 Spiteri-Ahern v R

Details

AGLC: Spiteri-Ahern v R [2022] NSWCCA 56
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 56
Decision Date: 21 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Spiteri-Ahern was convicted of murder as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise. He had arranged to pay money to a co-participant in return for the killing of the deceased. The case came before the court on an application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The matter was a trial by judge alone. The central legal issues were whether the verdict was unreasonable, whether the trial judge’s reasons were inadequate, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined whether the trial judge’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and the applicant’s admissions of guilt was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate and the conviction was not unreasonable. The judge had considered the evidence thoroughly and provided sufficient reasoning for the verdict. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The applicant’s arguments regarding the inadequacy of reasons and the excessiveness of the sentence did not succeed. The reasoning provided by the trial judge was consistent with the statutory requirements under section 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence remained as determined by the trial judge. The court confirmed that the evidence and reasoning provided were sufficient to support the verdict and the imposed sentence. The decision underscored the importance of adequate reasoning in trials by judge alone and the deference owed to the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence and sentencing considerations.

Orders