R v Crowther-Wilkinson [2004] NSWCCA 249

R v Crowther-Wilkinson [2004] NSWCCA 249

The evidence against the appellant was compelling and pointed inevitably to his guilt; the trial judge was not required to direct the jury as argued, as this was previously accepted by experienced counsel at trial; and the possibility of internet access to interlocutory judgments posed no unacceptably high risk of prejudice, as there was no evidence any juror accessed the material and the jury were properly instructed to reach their decision solely on the evidence.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Simon Crowther-Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence below confirmed.
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Murder, Jury Direction, Circumstantial Evidence, Prejudicial Publicity
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Murder Jury Direction Circumstantial Evidence Prejudicial Publicity

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Simon Crowther-Wilkinson

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
  2. 2 Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had planned the murder
  3. 3 Whether the trial miscarried by reason of the publication on the Internet, both before and during the trial, of two interlocutory judgments

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence against the appellant was compelling and pointed inevitably to his guilt; the trial judge was not required to direct the jury as argued, as this was previously accepted by experienced counsel at trial; and the possibility of internet access to interlocutory judgments posed no unacceptably high risk of prejudice, as there was no evidence any juror accessed the material and the jury were properly instructed to reach their decision solely on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence below confirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and sentence below confirmed