R v GREY [2002] NSWCCA 144

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v GREY [2002] NSWCCA 144 revised - 6/05/2002 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60800/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 17 April 2002

REGINA PARTIES : v SHARON LEE GREY JUDGMENT OF : Handley JA at 1; Sully J at 8; Smart AJ at 9

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 94/61/0159 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Rummery DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Crown - P G Ingram Appellant - T S Cornish SOLICITORS : Crown - S E O'Connor Appellant - D J Humphreys CATCHWORDS : SUCCESSFUL APPEAL BY CO-ACCUSED CASES CITED: N/a DECISION : Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed. Verdict of not guilty substituted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60800/01 DC 94/61/0159 HANDLEY JA SULLY J SMART AJ

17 April 2002 REGINA v SHARON LEE GREY

Judgment 1 HANDLEY JA: On 10 August 1998 in the District Court at Dubbo the appellant and her husband, Anthony Grey, stood trial before Rummery DCJ and a jury on various charges relating to the criminal handling of motor vehicles. Only two charges were directed to the appellant. She was acquitted on one, but found guilty on count 15 which charged her with disposing of a motor vehicle on 19 November 1992 at Tamworth, knowing that the motor vehicle had been stolen. 2 Rummery DCJ deferred passing sentence on Mrs Grey upon her entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 3 years and she was required to submit to the supervision of the Parole Service for a period of 18 months. The period of supervision and the bond have expired. 3 Her husband was convicted on a number of charges and he was sentenced by Rummery DCJ to a period of full time custody. His appeal to this Court was dismissed by majority on 3 March 2000, but on 15 November 2001 the High Court allowed his appeal and ordered a new trial. 4 The Director of Public Prosecutions has since indicated that he does not propose to proceed to retry the husband and a nolle prosequi or equivalent has been entered. 5 The successful appeal of the husband to the High Court of Australia demonstrates beyond the possibility of argument that if the present appellant had appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal and then to the High Court her appeal would also have been allowed and her conviction by the jury on count 15 would have been quashed. A new trial of the present appellant on that count may or may not have been ordered by that Court. 6 In view of the attitude of the Director to the question of a new trial of the husband, there is no point in this Court ordering a new trial on count 15. 7 Accordingly I would propose that the appeal be allowed, that the conviction on count 15 be quashed, and a verdict of not guilty be substituted. 8 SULLY J: I agree. 9 SMART AJ: I also agree. ******