Legal Research
Cases
Taylor-Joycey v The Queen

Taylor-Joycey v The Queen

Case [2021] NSWCCA 29 10 March 2021

Admissibility of Evidence

Unreasonable Verdicts

Criminal Law

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: Taylor-Joycey v R [2021] NSWCCA 29
Hearing dates: 24 February 2021
Decision date: 10 March 2021
Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Harrison J at [2]; Adamson J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Refuse leave under rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules to appeal on grounds 1-6.
(2)   Grant leave to appeal against the conviction on ground 7.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
(4)   Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(5)   Dismiss the appeal against sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Directions to jury — accused’s right to silence — post offence conduct — consciousness of guilt — witnesses not called in the Crown case — hearsay evidence — victim’s motive to lie — Unreasonable verdicts
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence

Legislation Cited:
CrimesAct 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 33(1)(a)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (1952 SI 2) (NSW), r 4
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 89, 136, 165, 191

Cases Cited:
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
DoevR [2008] NSWCCA 203; (2008) 187 A Crim R 328
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; [2002] HCA 45
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Louizos v R [2009] NSWCCA 71; (2009) 194 A Crim R 223
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; [2008] HCA 1
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 283
Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95; [1991] HCA 34
R v Cao (2006) 65 NSWLR 552; [2006] NSWCCA 89
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dylan Taylor-Joycey (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Wasley (Appellant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Watsons Solicitors (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/326439
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

11 June 2019

Before:

O’Connor QC ADCJ

File Number(s):

2017/326439

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I have had the advantage of reading a draft of the reasons for judgment of Adamson J. I agree with her Honour, for the reasons she gives, that leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules should be refused in relation to grounds 1-6. I have reviewed the trial, listened to the recordings of the triple-O calls made by Ms Dempsey and Mr Thorley, and viewed the mobile phone footage taken by Mr Wood. I agree with her Honour, for the reasons she…

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 Taylor-Joycey v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taylor-Joycey v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 10 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor-Joycey v The Queen, the respondent, the accused, appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was the directions given to the jury by the trial judge regarding the accused’s right to silence, his post-offence conduct, and the application of consciousness of guilt. Additionally, the appeal contested the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the credibility of witnesses not called by the Crown, particularly the motive of the victim to lie.

The legal issues addressed by the court involved whether the trial judge erred in giving certain directions to the jury, which could have improperly influenced their verdict. Specifically, the court examined whether the judge’s comments on the accused’s right to silence and post-offence conduct were prejudicial, and whether the judge should have instructed the jury on the principle of consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, the court considered whether the trial judge adequately assessed the reliability and admissibility of hearsay evidence and the potential bias or motive of a non-called witness.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in the directions given to the jury. It found that the judge's comments on the accused's right to silence and post-offence conduct were not prejudicial and did not infringe upon the accused's rights. The court also determined that no instruction on consciousness of guilt was necessary in this case. Regarding the hearsay evidence and the credibility of witnesses, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the evidence and exercised his discretion correctly in admitting it. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration of the sentence.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was remitted to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The court’s decision provides guidance on the proper application of legal principles in criminal trials, particularly concerning jury directions, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the assessment of witness credibility.

Orders