Wiggins v R [2020] NSWCCA 256

Wiggins v R [2020] NSWCCA 256

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's directions wrongly undermined the applicant's response to the two most significant aspects of the Crown case: the identity of the burned out bike and the DNA evidence. It was factually incorrect to direct that there was no evidence identifying the helmet worn by the gunman as the helmet in Mr Ferguson's garage; comments concerning the helmet, sunglasses and balaclava conveyed scepticism and improperly supported the Crown case; and the comment that the features relied on by Ms Ballardin were generic unfairly called into question evidence that might have assisted the applicant. Taken together, those directions meant the applicant's case was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From Convictions in the Supreme Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions' 'summing Up' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'reasonable Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'jury Directions' 'summing Up' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'dna Evidence' 'reasonable Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction From Convictions in the Supreme Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's summing up was so lacking in balance and unfair that there was a miscarriage of justice." 'Whether the trial judge erred in directions to the jury regarding circumstantial evidence and hypotheses consistent with innocence.' "Whether directions concerning DNA evidence on the helmet and sunglasses unfairly undermined the applicant's alternative explanation." 'Whether directions concerning the balaclava and the bike evidence of Ms Ballardin improperly supported the Crown case and undermined the defence case.' 'Whether complaints concerning the earplug and absence of injury to the applicant disclosed unfairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's directions wrongly undermined the applicant's response to the two most significant aspects of the Crown case: the identity of the burned out bike and the DNA evidence. It was factually incorrect to direct that there was no evidence identifying the helmet worn by the gunman as the helmet in Mr Ferguson's garage; comments concerning the helmet, sunglasses and balaclava conveyed scepticism and improperly supported the Crown case; and the comment that the features relied on by Ms Ballardin were generic unfairly called into question evidence that might have assisted the applicant. Taken together, those directions meant the applicant's case was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted;' 'Appeal allowed;' 'Conviction set aside;' 'There be a new trial.']