R v Hickson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1572

R v Hickson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 1572

The evidence in Tania Morsman's statement, supported at least in part by Robert Hamilton's statement, was sufficient to satisfy the relatively low Doney threshold and to permit the Crown to open its case on the alternative basis of joint criminal enterprise. Unlike Sever and Wood, the evidence was not silent as to the existence and involvement of another identified person, and unlike Cooper there was evidence of an arrangement. By contrast, the evidence of the accused's visit to Dr Kalokerinos on 22 December 1989 was not relevant and admissible as the case then stood because any conclusion that the accused attended due to an injury sustained in the robbery and killing would be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Procedural Rulings on Notice of Motion Before Trial Opening
Outcome
The accused's application was refused insofar as it sought to prevent the Crown opening on joint criminal enterprise; evidence of the visit to Dr Kalokerinos was held not presently relevant and admissible.
Legal Topics
['opening Address to Jury' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'constructive Murder' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'relevance and Admissibility' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['opening Address to Jury' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'constructive Murder' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'relevance and Admissibility' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 Prosecution for Murder / Procedural Rulings on Notice of Motion Before Trial Opening

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecution should be permitted to open its case to the jury on the alternative basis that the offence was committed pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise to which the accused was a party.' 'Whether evidence that the accused allegedly attended the surgery of Dr Kalokerinos on 22 December 1989 was relevant and admissible in the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence in Tania Morsman's statement, supported at least in part by Robert Hamilton's statement, was sufficient to satisfy the relatively low Doney threshold and to permit the Crown to open its case on the alternative basis of joint criminal enterprise. Unlike Sever and Wood, the evidence was not silent as to the existence and involvement of another identified person, and unlike Cooper there was evidence of an arrangement. By contrast, the evidence of the accused's visit to Dr Kalokerinos on 22 December 1989 was not relevant and admissible as the case then stood because any conclusion that the accused attended due to an injury sustained in the robbery and killing would be...

Court Disposition

The accused's application was refused insofar as it sought to prevent the Crown opening on joint criminal enterprise; evidence of the visit to Dr Kalokerinos was held not presently relevant and admissible.

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to prevent the Crown from opening the case in the alternative as a joint criminal enterprise.' 'As the evidence currently stood, evidence of the visit to Dr Kalokerinos on 22 December 1989 was not relevant and admissible, and would not be permitted to be adduced if the evidence remained as...