Raju v R [2010] NSWCCA 38

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Raju v R [2010] NSWCCA 38

HEARING DATE(S): 3 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Howie J at 118; Johnson J at 119

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence - appeal dismissed - CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - miscarriage of justice - leave to appeal declined

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193 CASES CITED : Norris v R [2007] NSWCCA 235 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124 Zaphir v R [2009] NSWCCA 124

PARTIES: Kaniappa Raju (Appellant) The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2365

COUNSEL: J Manuell SC (Appellant) D Arnott SC/N Noman (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2005/2365

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bell J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 December 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: NSWSC 1418

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2005/2365

McCLELLAN CJ at CL HOWIE J JOHNSON J

THURSDAY 4 MARCH 2010 RAJU, Kaniappa v R Judgment 1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant, Kaniappa Raju, was convicted following a trial with a jury of the murder of his wife, Aruna Verma. He appeals against that conviction. 2 The appellant was sentenced to 21 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. He has abandoned an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. He appeals his conviction on four grounds. He firstly submitted that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The second ground is concerned with the failure of the Crown to call a witness, Anthony Whittal. The third ground is concerned with the fact that the jury were not informed of the appellant's earlier acquittal of a charge of attempted murder. In the fourth ground he argued that the appellant suffered a miscarriage of justice because of the way in which the jury was "effectively invited to speculate on the significance" of an exhibit in the trial.