R v BEST [2012] NSWSC 924

R v BEST [2012] NSWSC 924

The plea in bar failed because the elements of the back-up charges were not the same as, nor included in, the murder charge, and the charges concerned treatment of a dead body regardless of the cause of death. Count 1 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the Court was unable to accept Ms Hogden's version of events to the requisite standard. Count 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the combination of circumstantial evidence, including the hacksaw used to dismember the deceased being borrowed by the accused and found in his van with material containing the deceased's DNA profile, the disposal circumstances involving garbage bags, the text message consistent with an attempted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Indecently Interfering With a Dead Human Body and Improperly Interfering With a Dead Human Body / Back Up Charges After a Jury Acquittal on Murder, Determined by the Court Without a Jury on the Evidence Given at the Murder Trial
Outcome
The accused was found not guilty of indecently interfering with a dead human body and guilty of improperly interfering with a dead human body or human remains.
Legal Topics
['back Up Charges' 'indecently Interfering With a Dead Human Body' 'improperly Interfering With a Dead Human Body' 'plea in Bar' 'double Jeopardy' 'assessment of Witness Credit' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['back Up Charges' 'indecently Interfering With a Dead Human Body' 'improperly Interfering With a Dead Human Body' 'plea in Bar' 'double Jeopardy' 'assessment of Witness Credit' 'circumstantial Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding for Indecently Interfering With a Dead Human Body and Improperly Interfering With a Dead Human Body / Back Up Charges After a Jury Acquittal on Murder, Determined by the Court Without a Jury on the Evidence Given at the Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the back-up charges should be dismissed on a plea in bar following the accused's acquittal of murder." 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused indecently interfered with a dead human body.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused improperly interfered with a dead human body or human remains.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plea in bar failed because the elements of the back-up charges were not the same as, nor included in, the murder charge, and the charges concerned treatment of a dead body regardless of the cause of death. Count 1 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the Court was unable to accept Ms Hogden's version of events to the requisite standard. Count 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the combination of circumstantial evidence, including the hacksaw used to dismember the deceased being borrowed by the accused and found in his van with material containing the deceased's DNA profile, the disposal circumstances involving garbage bags, the text message consistent with an attempted...

Court Disposition

The accused was found not guilty of indecently interfering with a dead human body and guilty of improperly interfering with a dead human body or human remains.

Orders

  • ['To the charge of indecently interfere with dead human body - the accused is found not guilty.' 'To the charge of improperly interfere with corpse or human remains - the accused is found guilty.' 'The Court will hear submissions, if any, on sentence.']