Dennis v R [2012] NSWCCA 120

Dennis v R [2012] NSWCCA 120

The appeal failed because the jury did not need a separate Shepherd direction requiring proof that the appellant had the opportunity to injure J for the whole period between 2.00 am and 3.30 am; it was sufficient and obvious within the general beyond reasonable doubt direction that the jury had to be satisfied that the injuries occurred while J was alone with the appellant. The summing-up was not shown to be unbalanced or unfair, and the complaints were not raised at trial. The proposed new evidence lacked sufficient cogency and created no significant possibility that a reasonable jury would have acquitted the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal With Application to Adduce New Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to adduce new evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['murder Conviction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'indispensable Intermediate Fact' 'shepherd Direction' 's 165 Identification Warning' 'summing Up Fairness' 'new Evidence on Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'appeals'] ['murder Conviction' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'indispensable Intermediate Fact' 'shepherd Direction' 's 165 Identification Warning' 'summing Up Fairness' 'new Evidence on 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal With Application to Adduce New Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that it had to find beyond reasonable doubt as an indispensable intermediate fact that J's injuries were occasioned between 2.00 am and 3.30 am when J was alone and in the sole care of the appellant." "Whether the trial judge's treatment of the evidence concerning the Crown contention that J was injured while alone with the appellant between 2.00 am and 3.30 am was unbalanced and unfair." 'Whether leave should be granted to adduce mobile telephone records and evidence about the number of upstairs apartments in the unit block as new evidence on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the jury did not need a separate Shepherd direction requiring proof that the appellant had the opportunity to injure J for the whole period between 2.00 am and 3.30 am; it was sufficient and obvious within the general beyond reasonable doubt direction that the jury had to be satisfied that the injuries occurred while J was alone with the appellant. The summing-up was not shown to be unbalanced or unfair, and the complaints were not raised at trial. The proposed new evidence lacked sufficient cogency and created no significant possibility that a reasonable jury would have acquitted the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to adduce new evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'Leave to tender the evidence sought to be tendered for the first time on appeal refused.']