Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229 Hearing dates: 09 June 2023 Date of orders: 08 September 2023 Decision date: 08 September 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Wilson J at [143]; Sweeney J at [154]. Decision: 1. Grant an extension of time and leave to appeal. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Quash the Applicant's conviction for the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter. 4. In lieu thereof, order that the Applicant be acquitted. Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – unreasonable verdict – where Applicant convicted of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter by excessive self-defence – whether Crown excluded the reasonable possibility that the Applicant believed that her co-accused saw her being threatened with a gun on the street such that at the time she assisted him in evading arrest after the fact, she believed her co-accused's conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances as she believed he perceived them – where the co-accused and eyewitnesses did not see the deceased threaten the Applicant with a gun on the street – where gun found in close proximity to site where the deceased was struck with the samurai sword CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – consciousness of guilt reasoning – where Crown relied on post-offence conduct as part of a circumstantial case as to co-accused's state of mind at the time of the sword strike rather than as an implied admission or independent evidence of guilt – where Applicant and co-accused fled the scene, disposed of various items from the co-accused's house and concealed the bloodied samurai sword – where no objection raised or direction sought by Applicant's trial counsel Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 347, 350, 418-419, 421 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(1) Criminal Code Act 1899 (QLD) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15 Cases Cited: AC v R [2023] NSWCCA 133 Cavanagh v R; McIvor v R; O'Keefe v R [2023] NSWCCA 164 Coghlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63 Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69 Libke v the Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 R v Blake Davis [2021] NSWSC 235 R v Davis and Quinn (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1800 R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 493 R v Hannah Quinn (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 494 R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562 R v Stone [1981] VR 737 R v Tevendale [1955] VLR 95 R v Valencia Valencia [2023] NSWSC 163 Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Winning v The Queen [2003] WASCA 245 Texts Cited: New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Complicity (Report No 129, December 2010) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hannah Quinn (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: B Rigg SC with E McLaughlin (Applicant) G Wright SC with J Styles (Respondent)