R v Dougas; R v Read; R v Linke (No 10) [2022] NSWSC 306

R v Dougas; R v Read; R v Linke (No 10) [2022] NSWSC 306

The preconditions for Murray or Shepherd directions were not met. Although Mr Chapple's evidence of the 2000 conversations was direct and important evidence, it was not the only evidence of an essential ingredient of the alleged conspiracy; later communications and other evidence were capable of being used as circumstantial evidence of the conspiracy and of each accused's participation. The disputed conversations were strands in the cable rather than indispensable links in the chain, and the jury was entitled to consider all the evidence together. The alleged antecedent conversation with Mr Linke was not a required intermediate fact because the 6 August 2004 email could be used by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / Applications During Trial Before Crown Closing Address for Murray and Shepherd Directions
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
['conspiracy' 'jury Directions' 'murray Direction' 'shepherd Direction' 'direct and Circumstantial Evidence' 'intermediate Facts' 'standard of Proof']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conspiracy' 'jury Directions' 'murray Direction' 'shepherd Direction' 'direct and Circumstantial Evidence' 'intermediate Facts' 'standard of Proof']

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 Procedural Ruling / Applications During Trial Before Crown Closing Address for Murray and Shepherd Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury should be directed in accordance with R v Murray that it could not convict unless it accepted beyond reasonable doubt Mr Chapple's evidence of conversations with Mr Dougas in 2000 about the genesis of the alleged conspiracy." 'Whether the jury should be directed in accordance with Shepherd v The Queen that the alleged 2000 conversations between Mr Chapple and Mr Dougas were indispensable intermediate facts that had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether similar Murray or Shepherd directions were required in relation to Mr Dougas allegedly directing Mr Chapple to seek approval from Mr Read.' 'Whether a Shepherd direction was required in relation to an alleged antecedent conversation between Mr Chapple and Mr Linke before the 6 August 2004 email.']

Ratio Decidendi

The preconditions for Murray or Shepherd directions were not met. Although Mr Chapple's evidence of the 2000 conversations was direct and important evidence, it was not the only evidence of an essential ingredient of the alleged conspiracy; later communications and other evidence were capable of being used as circumstantial evidence of the conspiracy and of each accused's participation. The disputed conversations were strands in the cable rather than indispensable links in the chain, and the jury was entitled to consider all the evidence together. The alleged antecedent conversation with Mr Linke was not a required intermediate fact because the 6 August 2004 email could be used by the...

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • ['Refuse applications for directions in accordance with R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 and Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56.']