Legal Research
Cases
ZT v The King

ZT v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 241 29 September 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ZT v R [2023] NSWCCA 241
Hearing dates: 11 August 2023
Date of orders: 29 September 2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Before: Kirk JA at [1];
Fagan J at [133];
Sweeney J at [266]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal and appeal upheld.
(2) Quash the appellant’s conviction and a judgment of acquittal be entered in its place.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — Joint criminal enterprise and extended joint criminal enterprise — Where admissions were made by the applicant against own interests — Where admissions are inconsistent — Whether admissions sufficiently reliable to found a guilty verdict — Whether jury had a natural advantage in hearing phone intercepts and viewing police interviews
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — No issue of principle

Cases Cited:
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Sinclair v The King (1946) 73 CLR 316

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ZT (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Dalton SC (Applicant)
G Newton SC and J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Miralis (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/266663
Publication restriction: The identities of the applicant ZT and of certain of the witnesses (who are identified only by initials) are protected by s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

09 December 2021

Before:

Walton J

File Number(s):

2019/266663

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

William Chaplin was murdered in 2010, orchestrated by a Paul Watson. The applicant in this appeal was also charged with that murder. He had been 16 years old at the time, and living with Watson and Watson’s wife. The Crown’s case against him involved the doctrines of joint criminal enterprise or extended joint criminal enterprise, alleging an agreement between the applicant and Watson to at the least assault the deceased.

Ms Watson had pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact by assisting to dispose of the body of the deceased. The applicant was not charged with that offence, although there was evidence from Watson’s wife directly implicating him in doing so.

The Crown’s evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the murder itself was comprised of various witness testimonies, forensic evidence and alleged admissions made by the applicant in intercepted phone calls and two police interviews. The applicant’s admissions contained various inconsistencies and untruths. He confessed to each of his parents over the phone that he had cut the throat of the deceased. The Crown accepted below that that was probably untrue, based on Ms Watson’s observations of the body.

The applicant was found guilty of murder following a trial by jury in the Supreme Court, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for 12…

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 ZT v The King

Details

AGLC: ZT v The King [2023] NSWCCA 241
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 241
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ZT v The King involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant, ZT, for his involvement in a joint criminal enterprise and extended joint criminal enterprise. The appellant was found guilty of multiple counts, including murder and conspiracy to commit murder, arising from a violent incident in Melbourne. The appeal centred on the question of whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented, particularly the reliability of admissions made by the appellant against his own interests and the jury's ability to assess these admissions in comparison to the appellant's phone intercepts and police interviews. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the admissions made by the appellant were sufficiently reliable to form the basis of a guilty verdict, given their inconsistencies, and whether the jury had a natural advantage in assessing the reliability of these admissions in the context of the other evidence. The court had to consider the weight of the admissions, which were against the appellant's interests, and whether they were sufficiently reliable to support the jury's verdict. Additionally, the court considered whether the jury's ability to hear the phone intercepts and view the police interviews provided them with an advantage in assessing the reliability of the admissions.

In its judgment, the court held that the admissions made by the appellant, despite their inconsistencies, were sufficiently reliable to support the jury's verdict. The court found that the jury was well-placed to assess the admissions' reliability in the context of the other evidence, including the phone intercepts and police interviews. The court rejected the argument that the jury was at a disadvantage in assessing the admissions, given their ability to hear and view the other evidence. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the appellant's conviction on all counts. The court found that the evidence, including the admissions, phone intercepts, and police interviews, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Orders