Meakin v R [2018] NSWCCA 288

Meakin v R [2018] NSWCCA 288

By majority, Ground 1 failed because it was open to the jury, on the whole of the circumstantial evidence and giving due regard to the jury's role and advantages, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the collision occurred off the roadway and that the appellant was guilty of murder. Ground 2 succeeded because the appellant's post-collision flight and concealment conduct was intractably neutral as between consciousness of guilt of murder and consciousness of guilt of causing death or serious harm by intoxicated driving; the trial judge therefore erred in leaving it as capable of proving consciousness of guilt of murder, and the error could not be treated as causing no substantial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction From Supreme Court Conviction for Murder
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed on Ground 2 only; murder conviction quashed; retrial ordered on the indictment.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'flight From Scene' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Death While Intoxicated' 'jury Directions' 'criminal Appeals']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'flight From Scene' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Death While Intoxicated' 'jury Directions' 'criminal Appeals']

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 and Appeal Against Conviction From Supreme Court Conviction for Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury's verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence." "Whether the trial judge erred in leaving the appellant's post-collision flight and concealment conduct to the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt of murder." 'Whether any error concerning consciousness of guilt should be disregarded under the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, Ground 1 failed because it was open to the jury, on the whole of the circumstantial evidence and giving due regard to the jury's role and advantages, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the collision occurred off the roadway and that the appellant was guilty of murder. Ground 2 succeeded because the appellant's post-collision flight and concealment conduct was intractably neutral as between consciousness of guilt of murder and consciousness of guilt of causing death or serious harm by intoxicated driving; the trial judge therefore erred in leaving it as capable of proving consciousness of guilt of murder, and the error could not be treated as causing no substantial...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed on Ground 2 only; murder conviction quashed; retrial ordered on the indictment.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'Ground 1 of the appeal is rejected.' 'The appeal is allowed on ground 2 only.' "Quash the appellant's conviction of murder." 'Order that there be a retrial of the appellant on the indictment.']