Regina v J L Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298

Regina v J L Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298

The appeal failed because the trial judge's circumstantial evidence directions, read with the repeated onus directions and the specific direction that the appellant's presence in Lugarno had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, did not reverse the onus or misstate the applicable test; the intent directions adequately explained that the Crown had to prove an intention to cause really serious bodily injury and permissibly left to the jury whether shooting a person in the leg at close range satisfied that element; a warning about Mr Bicanic's evidence was not plainly necessary because the alleged dangers were obvious and were exposed by counsel and the summing up; and the failure to repeat...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a Supreme Court Conviction After Retrial Before Dunford J and a Jury
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'murder' 'common Purpose' 'intention to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'warning as to Unreliable Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S165']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'murder' 'common Purpose' 'intention to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'warning as to Unreliable Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 S165']

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 / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From a Supreme Court Conviction After Retrial Before Dunford J and a Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on circumstantial evidence by referring to consistency with innocence and the totality of proved circumstances.' "Whether the trial judge's directions on the intent element of murder were flawed where the Crown case was that the common purpose was to shoot a person in the leg." "Whether the trial judge was required to warn the jury that Mr Bicanic's evidence may be unreliable and that caution was needed in accepting it or assigning it weight." 'Whether the trial judge erred by not reminding the jury of an earlier warning when later dealing with the evidence of Miss Brown.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the trial judge's circumstantial evidence directions, read with the repeated onus directions and the specific direction that the appellant's presence in Lugarno had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, did not reverse the onus or misstate the applicable test; the intent directions adequately explained that the Crown had to prove an intention to cause really serious bodily injury and permissibly left to the jury whether shooting a person in the leg at close range satisfied that element; a warning about Mr Bicanic's evidence was not plainly necessary because the alleged dangers were obvious and were exposed by counsel and the summing up; and the failure to repeat...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']