R v Ray [2003] NSWCCA 227

R v Ray [2003] NSWCCA 227

The trial miscarried because the trial judge gave and maintained directions on lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt when the Crown did not rely on the appellant's ERISP answers in that way, failed to identify with precision which matters could be used as consciousness of guilt rather than credibility, and summed up in a way capable of significantly bolstering the prosecution case. The proviso was not appropriate because those directions and comments were capable of influencing the verdict. However, after its own review of the evidence, the Court was not persuaded that the jury, acting reasonably, must have entertained a reasonable doubt, so the unreasonable verdict ground failed and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Jury Conviction for Manslaughter
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'jury Directions About Lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['manslaughter' 'jury Directions About Lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']

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 Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Jury Conviction for Manslaughter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's directions on lies were erroneous in law and caused a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the refusal to withdraw the lies directions or discharge the jury after the summing up was erroneous.' 'Whether the verdict was unreasonable and/or could not be supported on the evidence.' 'Whether the proviso should be applied despite error in the summing up.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial miscarried because the trial judge gave and maintained directions on lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt when the Crown did not rely on the appellant's ERISP answers in that way, failed to identify with precision which matters could be used as consciousness of guilt rather than credibility, and summed up in a way capable of significantly bolstering the prosecution case. The proviso was not appropriate because those directions and comments were capable of influencing the verdict. However, after its own review of the evidence, the Court was not persuaded that the jury, acting reasonably, must have entertained a reasonable doubt, so the unreasonable verdict ground failed and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' 'Conviction quashed' 'New trial ordered']