R v Cooper [2002] NSWCCA 428

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Cooper [2002] NSWCCA 428 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60058/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 October 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 October 2002

PARTIES : R v Leslie William Cooper JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA; Bell J; Buddin J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 01/11/0496 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Gibson DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : A P Cook - Appellant E Wilkins - Crown SOLICITORS : Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service - Appellant S E O'Connor - Crown CATCHWORDS : Forensic evidence that appellant was in car - appellant denied steaing car from Hill Street - said he got in car in Grace Avenue to steal it but saw child and did not do so - examination of evidence - disbelief of appellant's evidence did not prove he stole car from Hill Street - evidence insufficient for proof beyond reasonable doubt. D. Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 521; Gauci v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 135 CLR 81; CASES CITED: Lee v Russell (1961) WAR 103; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Steinberg v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 134 CLR 640. DECISION : Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, and verdicts of acquittal entered.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CCA 60058/02 DC 01/11/0496

GILES JA BELL J BUDDIN J

Friday 18 October 2002 R v COOPER Judgment 1 THE COURT: The appellant was tried before J X Gibson DCJ and a jury on charges of stealing a motor vehicle and manslaughter. He was found guilty on both charges, and was effectively sentenced to imprisonment for seven years with a non-parole period of five years. He appealed against conviction and applied for leave to appeal against sentence. 2 The first ground of appeal against conviction was "that the verdicts are unreasonable in that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt on the issue of the appellant taking the car from Hill Street". If it were upheld, the appellant would be entitled to verdicts of acquittal. The other grounds of appeal against conviction were concerned with the course of the trial and the directions given to the jury. If one or more of the other grounds of appeal were upheld, ordinarily a new trial would be directed. 3 With the benefit of the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant and the Crown, at the hearing of the appeal we asked the Crown to address us on the first ground of appeal against conviction. At the conclusion of the Crown's oral submissions we made orders that the appeal be allowed, the convictions be quashed, and verdicts of acquittal be entered. We said that our reasons would be given later. These are our reasons.