Grant v R [2010] NSWCCA 44

Grant v R [2010] NSWCCA 44

Leave to appeal was granted despite substantial delay, but the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's directions, including corrections and written directions on provocation, were adequate; the directions on expert and police evidence were appropriate; the hearsay and cautionary directions were conventional and sufficient; and the verdict of murder was not unreasonable, the Crown case being compelling and the appellant's account that the deceased was the aggressor not credible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Considered Because Notice Was Filed Out of Time; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'provocation' 'self Defence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'jury Directions' 'expert Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'out of Time Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'provocation' 'self Defence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'jury Directions' 'expert Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'out of Time Appeal']

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 for Murder / Court of Criminal Appeal; Leave to Appeal Considered Because Notice Was Filed Out of Time; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted despite the appellant filing his notice of appeal substantially out of time.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury on provocation, including the ordinary person test, proportionality and intention.' "Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury about conflicting expert evidence from Dr Little and Professor Hilton concerning injuries to the appellant's hand." 'Whether inadequate directions were given concerning evidence of statements attributed to the appellant by police officers.' 'Whether the verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence.' 'Whether procedural irregularities arose from hearsay evidence concerning the relationship between the appellant and the deceased and comments made to police.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted despite substantial delay, but the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's directions, including corrections and written directions on provocation, were adequate; the directions on expert and police evidence were appropriate; the hearsay and cautionary directions were conventional and sufficient; and the verdict of murder was not unreasonable, the Crown case being compelling and the appellant's account that the deceased was the aggressor not credible.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']