Sutcliffe v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 208

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutcliffe v R [2014] NSWCCA 208
Hearing dates: 27 August 2014
Decision date: 07 October 2014
Before: Leeming JA; Adams J; Fullerton J
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - joint criminal enterprise - four co-accused charged with murder - three convicted of murder, the fourth of manslaughter - whether jury's verdicts inconsistent - evidence capable of sustaining a belief on the part of the fourth that he was acting in self-defence - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 421
Cases Cited: Grant v R [2014] NSWCCA 67
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sean Sutcliffe (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
G Wendler (Appellant)
S Dowling SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Van Houten Law (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/18174
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-03-26 00:00:00

Before:

Grove AJ

Judgment

THE COURT: Sean Robert Sutcliffe appeals against his conviction, following a 28 day trial before Grove AJ and a jury of 12, of the murder of Jamie Lefoe on 18 January 2011. Leave to appeal is required because the ground of appeal does not involve a question of law alone. For the reasons which follow there should be a grant of leave, and we shall refer to him as the appellant.

The appellant, together with Darren Michael Hoskins, Michael Patrick Brown and Darrin Troy Moulds, were arraigned before Grove AJ in 2013. The Crown case was that the four men, acting pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise, assaulted the deceased with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The jury returned verdicts of guilty of murder in the case of the appellant, Darren Hoskins and Darrin Moulds. Michael Brown was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

The sole ground of appeal is that there has been a miscarriage of justice because the verdict of guilty of murder instead of manslaughter was unreasonable given the jury returned a verdict for the co-accused Michael Brown of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Darren Hoskins also sought leave to appeal from his conviction. That appeal was heard immediately following the present appeal. Neither appellant relied upon the ground of appeal of the other. A more detailed summary of the facts is contained in this Court's reasons in dismissing the other appeal.

Given the narrowness of the grounds of appeal, the factual background so far as it is relevant may be summarised very concisely. For present purposes it suffices to say that there was a dispute between the four men and the deceased. The deceased believed that the appellant, Hoskins and Moulds were involved in burning cars in their neighbourhood of Ruse in south-western Sydney, including that of his mother, in the early hours of 18 January 2011. The deceased went to the appellant's house to…

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 Sutcliffe v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sutcliffe v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 208
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 07 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sutcliffe v The Queen involved four individuals charged with the murder of an individual in Australia. The accused were part of a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of the victim. Three of the co-accused were convicted of murder, while the fourth was convicted of manslaughter. The appellant, Sutcliffe, contested the conviction on the grounds that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, arguing that the evidence could support a belief that he acted in self-defence. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent given the evidence that could support a belief in self-defence by the appellant. The court needed to determine if the evidence was such that it could rationally support a finding of self-defence, which would have required a different verdict from manslaughter. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the jury had been properly directed on the law of self-defence and whether the jury's verdicts were coherent when viewed in the context of the evidence presented.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that while there was some evidence that could support a belief in self-defence, it was not sufficient to compel such a finding. The court held that the jury's verdicts were consistent and that there was no error in the directions given to the jury regarding the law of self-defence. The court found that the jury could have reasonably rejected the appellant's claim of self-defence based on the overall evidence and the improbability of his version of events. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders