Humphries v R [2015] NSWCCA 319

Humphries v R [2015] NSWCCA 319

The court found it was open to the jury, on the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. The evidence, while circumstantial, was coherent and pointed to the applicant's involvement. There was no error in the trial judge's refusal to give the direction under Shepherd v The Queen, nor in declining to discharge the jury upon the co-accused's plea change, as comprehensive and adequate judicial directions were provided. There was no miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Applicant: Arthur John Humphries; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Circumstantial Evidence, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Directions to Jury, Plea of Guilty by Co Accused
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Circumstantial Evidence Joint Criminal Enterprise Directions to Jury Plea of Guilty by Co Accused

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur John Humphries

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
  2. 2 Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury as required by Shepherd v The Queen with respect to indispensable intermediate facts
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered a miscarriage of justice as a result of the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury when the co-accused changed plea to guilty in the presence of the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The court found it was open to the jury, on the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt. The evidence, while circumstantial, was coherent and pointed to the applicant's involvement. There was no error in the trial judge's refusal to give the direction under Shepherd v The Queen, nor in declining to discharge the jury upon the co-accused's plea change, as comprehensive and adequate judicial directions were provided. There was no miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeal dismissed.