Regina v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60651/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 23 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 September 2002

PARTIES : Regina v Carl Rodney Slattery JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson JA at 115; Hidden J at 119; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 92/11/0214 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Rummery DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : (A) In Person (C) Mr Barrett SOLICITORS : (A) In Person (C) S E O'Connor CATCHWORDS : Evidence destroyed - Inadequate warning given as to effect on accused's conduct of case - Jones v Dunkel direction wrongly given as to four witnesses not called - Previous acquittal did not bar Crown from contending that motive for wounding with intent was to guard a cannabis crop LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Proceedings) Act Mental Health Act 1990 Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 7 Crampton v The Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133 CASES CITED: Jones v Dunkel R v Buckland (1977) 2 NSWLR 452 AT 459 R v Mohamed Zreika [2001] NSWCCA 57 R v Scott [2000] NSWCCA 187 DECISION : See para 114

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60651/99

HODGSON JA HIDDEN J SMART AJ

Wednesday, 4 September 2002

REGINA v CARL RODNEY SLATTERY JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ Carl Rodney Slattery appeals against his conviction by a jury after a 26 day trial of maliciously discharging a gun, namely, a shortened .22 calibre Stirling rifle with intent to do grievous bodily harm to another person. He challenges his conviction on the ground of inadequate and erroneous directions given by the trial judge as to the disadvantages the appellant suffered by reason of the destruction of the rifle and as to the conclusions that could be reached by the jury consequent upon the appellant not calling some four witnesses (the Jones v Dunkel direction). He has raised a question whether his acquittal on charges of cultivate commercial quantity of cannabis plant, supply commercial quantity of cannabis leaf and maliciously discharge firearm with intent to avoid lawful apprehension arising out of he same incident negatived the motive of guarding the crop attributed to him on the current charge. It was further submitted that thus the Crown could not present a case alleging that the accused's motive to discharge the firearm with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm was that of guarding the crop.