R v Murrell [2001] NSWCCA 179

Reported Decision : 123 A Crim R 54

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Murrell [2001] NSWCCA 179 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60432/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 June 2001

PARTIES : Regina Lloyd Anthony Murrell JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 1; Kirby J at 47; Mathews AJ at 48

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Studdert J OFFICER :

COUNSEL : C: P. Berman SC A: J. Doris SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor Neil Forshaws CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - appeal against conviction - murder - joint criminal enterprise - tape recording of evidence of poor quality - whether admission of tape and transcript into evidence constituted miscarriage of justice - whether new trial should be ordered - discretion of Court - whether verdict of acquittal should be entered for charge of murder or generally - whether new trial should be confined to charge of manslaughter Crimes Act 1900 s 18 LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 8 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 125 DECISION : (1) Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence quashed.; (3) New trial ordered.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60432 of 2000

WOOD CJ at CL KIRBY J MATHEWS AJ MONDAY 4TH JUNE 2001 REGINA v Lloyd Anthony MURRELL

The appellant was convicted of murder. A conversation by the appellant was captured by a listening device and was of critical importance to the Crown case of murder. The recording was of poor quality and the contents and transcript of the conversation were disputed at trial.

The appellant now appeals against the conviction on the grounds that (1) evidence in the form of opinions expressed about the words used and transcripts of what witnesses believed they heard should not have been admitted; (2) the trial Judge should have withdrawn evidence from the jury once it became clear there was significant issue and doubt as to what had been said by the appellant on the tape; (3) the trial Judge failed to give a warning to the jury on the unreliability of the transcripts; (4) the trial Judge failed to give sufficient warning as to the onus of proof of the contents of the recording; (5) the case should have been withdrawn from the jury on the basis that the Crown case was inherently weak; (6) fresh evidence now available would establish that crucial words attributed to the appellant were not uttered by him; (7) the verdict could not be supported having regard to the evidence.