Soars v R [2024] NSWCCA 218

Soars v R [2024] NSWCCA 218

The trial judge did not err in refusing a s 165 warning as there was insufficient evidence to suggest Lyndon Soars ought reasonably be supposed criminally concerned in the events, and his evidence was not of a kind that may be unreliable. There was no miscarriage of justice. Considering all the facts, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the Applicant's guilt; the circumstantial evidence against him was compelling. The sentence, though stern, was not unreasonable or unjust nor outside available sentencing range given the offence's gravity and the Applicant’s circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Jason Reginald Soars; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to grant of leave on ground 1, which itself was dismissed. Leave otherwise refused.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Miscarriage of Justice, Unreliable Evidence, Unreasonable Verdict, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Miscarriage of Justice Unreliable Evidence Unreasonable Verdict Manifest Excess

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Reginald Soars

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a warning under s 165(1)(d) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) regarding the reliability of Lyndon Soars' evidence
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the exclusion of other possible perpetrators
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing a s 165 warning as there was insufficient evidence to suggest Lyndon Soars ought reasonably be supposed criminally concerned in the events, and his evidence was not of a kind that may be unreliable. There was no miscarriage of justice. Considering all the facts, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the Applicant's guilt; the circumstantial evidence against him was compelling. The sentence, though stern, was not unreasonable or unjust nor outside available sentencing range given the offence's gravity and the Applicant’s circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to grant of leave on ground 1, which itself was dismissed. Leave otherwise refused.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal in respect of ground 1 of the draft Notice of Appeal.
  • Dismiss the Applicant's appeal on ground 1.