Rogers v R [2021] NSWCCA 61

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rogers v R [2021] NSWCCA 61 Hearing dates: 29 July 2020 Date of orders: 9 April 2021 Decision date: 09 April 2021 Before: Johnson J at [1]; N Adams J at [173]; Ierace J at [174] Decision: 1. The Appellant is refused leave under Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) to rely upon the ground of appeal.

2. The Appellant is refused leave to appeal against conviction. Catchwords: APPEAL – conviction – Applicant convicted of murder – Applicant suffocated his wife – partial defence of substantial impairment relied upon unsuccessfully at trial – partial defence of extreme provocation not relied upon at trial – contended on appeal that extreme provocation should have been left to jury – consideration of partial defence of extreme provocation in s 23 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – proper construction and operation of s 23 – held that partial defence of extreme provocation not raised on evidence at trial – miscarriage of justice not established – leave refused under Rule 4 Criminal Appeal Rules – leave to appeal against conviction refused Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Criminal Code (Qld) Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005 (Vic) Criminal Code Amendment (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Act 2003 (Tas) Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide Act 2008) (WA) Statutes Amendment (Abolition of Defence of Provocation and Related Matters) Act 2020 (SA) Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Green v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 334; [1997] HCA 50 Lindsay v The Queen (2015) 255 CLR 272; [2015] HCA 16 Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1942] AC 1 Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58; [1995] HCA 67 McIntyre v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 549; [2009] NSWCCA 305 Moffa v The Queen (1977) 138 CLR 601; [1977] HCA 14 Peniamina v The Queen (2020) 95 ALJR 85; [2020] HCA 47 Pollock v the Queen (2010) 242 CLR 233; [2010] HCA 35 R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2019] NSWSC 283 R v Cliff (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 166 R v Cliff (No. 6) [2018] NSWSC 587 R v McDonald [2019] NSWSC 839 R v McDonald [2019] NSWSC 858 R v Rogers (No. 9) [2019] NSWSC 1622 R v Singh [2012] NSWSC 637 R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175; [2012] NSWCCA 130 R v Turnbull (No. 25) [2016] NSWSC 831 R v Turnbull (No. 5) [2016] NSWSC 439 Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61 The Queen v A2; The Queen v Magennis; The Queen v Vaziri (2019) 93 ALJR 1106; [2019] HCA 35 Turnbull v R [2016] NSWCCA 109 Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158; [1986] HCA 76 Ziha v R [2013] NSWCCA 27 Texts Cited: Kate Fitz-Gibbon, "Homicide Law Reform in New South Wales: Examining the Merits of the Partial Defence of 'Extreme' Provocation" (2017) 40 Melbourne University Law Review 769 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Warren Francis Rogers (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr S Odgers SC (Appellant) Mr D Kell SC; Ms E Jones (Respondent)