Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 151

Matthews v R [2014] NSWCCA 151

The evidence of the principal Crown witness, Mr Whiting, was inherently unreliable in significant respects because it was inconsistent with his earlier accounts, the medical evidence, the CCTV evidence, and the bulk of other eyewitness evidence. Once his evidence of threats and repeated stomping to the head was rejected or substantially discounted, the remaining evidence did not permit satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The murder verdict was therefore unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, although there was sufficient evidence to justify a new trial on manslaughter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered on murder; new trial ordered on manslaughter.
Legal Topics
['unreasonable Verdict' 'murder' 'intent to Kill or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'manslaughter' 'eyewitness Reliability' 'self Defence' 'substantial Impairment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'evidence'] ['unreasonable Verdict' 'murder' 'intent to Kill or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'manslaughter' 'eyewitness Reliability' 'self Defence' 'substantial Impairment']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict that the applicant was guilty of murder was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence." 'Whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased.' 'Whether the evidence supported quashing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial on manslaughter.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the principal Crown witness, Mr Whiting, was inherently unreliable in significant respects because it was inconsistent with his earlier accounts, the medical evidence, the CCTV evidence, and the bulk of other eyewitness evidence. Once his evidence of threats and repeated stomping to the head was rejected or substantially discounted, the remaining evidence did not permit satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. The murder verdict was therefore unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, although there was sufficient evidence to justify a new trial on manslaughter.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; murder conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered on murder; new trial ordered on manslaughter.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' "The appeal is allowed and the applicant's conviction for the offence of murder is quashed." 'A verdict of acquittal should be entered in favour of the applicant on the charge of murder.' 'There should be a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.']