Legal Research
Cases
Towney v R

Towney v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 65 16 April 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Towney v R [2018] NSWCCA 65
Hearing dates: 26 February 2018
Date of orders: 16 April 2018
Decision date: 16 April 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Johnson J at [116];
N Adams J at [117]
Decision:
(1) In respect of Ground of Appeal 1, leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
(2) In respect of Ground of Appeal 2, refuse leave to raise this ground pursuant to r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – offence of murder – after an altercation with the deceased the offender armed himself with a knife and stabbed him – whether directions as to self-defence contrary to law – expressing standard of proof as “is there is a reasonable possibility” – consideration of decisions in Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63 and Moore v R [2016] NSWCCA 185 – application of r 4 – application of proviso – whether error in order in which jury asked to consider directions – whether error in suggesting to jury that self-defence be considered before intent – no error established – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 419
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 6
Criminal Appeal Rules – r 4
Cases Cited: Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14; 246 CLR 92
Budrodeen v R [2014] NSWCCA 332
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
Green v R [1971] HCA 55; 126 CLR 28
Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94
Hadchiti v R [2016] NSWCCA 63; 93 NSWLR 671
Justins v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 242; 79 NSWLR 544
Kalbasi v The State of Western Australia [2018] HCA 7
Kanaan & Ors v R [2006] NSWCCA 109
McKinney v The Queen; Judge v The Queen [1991] HCA 6; 171 CLR 468
Mencarious v R [2008] NSWCCA 237
Moore v R [2016] NSWCCA 185
Moore v R [2016] HCASL 323
Murray v The Queen [2002] HCA 26; 211 CLR 193
Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37; 196 CLR 297
R v ARS [2011] NSWCCA 266
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Stanton v The Queen [2003] HCA 29; 77 ALJR 1151
The Queen v Dookheea [2017] HCA 36; 91 ALJR 960
Thomas v The Queen [1960] HCA 2;102 CLR 584
Velevski v R [2002] HCA 4; 187 ALR 233
Ward v R [2013] NSWCCA 46
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; 224 CLR 300
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trent Towney – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
L Fernandez/A Bonner – Applicant
B Baker – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2013/221096
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Common Law – Criminal

Citation:

R v Towney (No 2)

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 Towney v R

Details

AGLC: Towney v R [2018] NSWCCA 65
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 65
Decision Date: 16 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the accused, Towney, against his conviction for murder was heard by the court. The case involved an altercation that resulted in the death of the deceased, who was stabbed by Towney after arming himself with a knife. The crux of the appeal was the contention that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding self-defence were erroneous and contrary to legal standards. Towney argued that the trial judge's phrasing of the standard of proof and the order in which the jury was instructed to consider self-defence and intent were flawed.

The legal issues before the court involved the correctness of the trial judge's directions on self-defence and the standard of proof, as well as the sequence of considerations presented to the jury. The court considered whether the expression of the standard of proof as "is there a reasonable possibility" was appropriate, and whether there was any error in the sequence in which the jury was asked to consider self-defence and intent. The reasoning of the court drew on precedents from cases such as Hadchiti v R and Moore v R, which provided guidance on the application of relevant rules and provisos. The court found no error in the judge's directions or the sequence of considerations, holding that the directions were correctly aligned with legal standards.

In light of the analysis, the court concluded that the appeal did not establish any error warranting a reconsideration of the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld. The court's decision confirmed the validity of the trial judge's approach to the jury's deliberations and the legal principles applied in the case.

Orders