Legal Research
Cases
Wright v Tasmania

Wright v Tasmania

Case [2005] TASSC 113 17 November 2005

Appeal

Self-Defence

Unreasonable or Insupportable Verdict

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2005] TASSC 113

CITATION: Wright v Tasmania [2005] TASSC 113

PARTIES:  WRIGHT, David John
  v
  TASMANIA (STATE OF)

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 41/2005
DELIVERED ON:  17 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans, Blow and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction – Particular grounds – Unreasonable or insupportable verdict – Where appeal dismissed – Murder – Self-defence – Probative force of evidence tending to negative self-defence.

M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [969]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  C J Rheinberger
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 113
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 113/2005
File No CCA 41/2005

DAVID JOHN WRIGHT v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

EVANS J
BLOW J
TENNENT J
17 November 2005

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 113/2005
File No CCA 41/2005

DAVID JOHN WRIGHT v TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

EVANS J
17 November 2005

The appellant appeals against his conviction for the murder of Nigel David Bigwood ("the deceased").

In the early hours of 15 August 2004, the deceased entered the yard of the appellant's residence armed with an axe. The deceased and the appellant met near the door to the appellant's residence. The appellant had a knife. The appellant struck the deceased with the knife a number of times, causing his death.

The appellant appeals on the sole ground:

"… that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory in that a jury acting reasonably could not have rejected self defence beyond reasonable doubt."

For some time it was the vogue to include in grounds of appeal an all encompassing ground to the effect that conviction was "unsafe or unsatisfactory". In M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ said of such a ground at 492 – 495:

"… the criminal appeal provisions which are in common form in this country allow a verdict that is unsafe or unsatisfactory to be set aside, notwithstanding that those words do not appear in the legislation. Section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), which is the relevant provision for present purposes, provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal must allow an appeal against conviction if the Court is:
'of opinion that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the court of trial should be set aside on the ground of the wrong decision of any question of law, or that on any other ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice'
provided that the court may dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
Where a court…

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 Wright v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Wright v Tasmania [2005] TASSC 113
Case: [2005] TASSC 113
Decision Date: 17 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Wright v Tasmania involved an appeal against a conviction for murder, where the appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable due to the presence of self-defence evidence. The appellant, Mr. Wright, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal, but the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, ruling that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable on the evidence. The Crown appealed to the High Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable and whether the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence concerning self-defence.

The High Court had to address the legal issues of whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable and whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence regarding self-defence. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the evidence supporting self-defence, which was significant and probative, and thus the verdict was unreasonable. The Crown argued that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, and the jury's verdict was open to them based on the conflicting evidence presented. The Court had to examine the trial judge's directions to the jury and determine whether the jury could reasonably have reached the verdict based on the evidence.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding self-defence were not adequate, and the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable on the evidence. The Court found that the trial judge did not properly address the probative force of the evidence tending to support self-defence. The Court emphasised that the trial judge should have clearly instructed the jury on how to assess the self-defence evidence and its impact on the overall case. Given the inadequate directions, the Court found that the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The Court did not make any orders regarding the sentence, as the conviction was quashed.

Orders