MG v R;; AE v R [2016] NSWCCA 228

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: MG v R;; AE v R [2016] NSWCCA 228 Hearing dates: 22 August 2016 Date of orders: 21 October 2016 Decision date: 21 October 2016 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Davies J at [255] Bellew J at [260] Decision: In the application by AE: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal dismissed.

In the application by MG: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) The conviction is quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeals – offence of murder – extended joint criminal enterprise – group of young males assault victim at party who subsequently dies – APPLICATION BY AE – whether jury's verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – AE identified by two witnesses as part of offending group – difficulties in identification evidence – advantage of jury in assessing witnesses – whether appropriate directions given by judge concerning identification evidence – comprehensive directions given with the authority of the court – whether appropriate directions given concerning extended joint criminal enterprise – conviction appeal dismissed – APPLICATION BY MG – whether verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence – no evidence of identification – Crown case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – jury in no better position than appellate court in assessing evidence – reasonable scenarios consistent with innocence available to applicant – conviction appeal allowed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 – s 18 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 – s 6(1) Jury Act 1977 – s 55F Cases Cited: Domican v R [1992] HCA 13; 173 CLR 555 Elwood v R [2016] NSWCCA 18 Gillard v The Queen [2003] HCA 64; 219 CLR 1 Hawi v R [2014] NSWCCA 83; 244 A Crim R 169 McAuliffe v The Queen [1995] HCA 37; 183 CLR 108 Miller v The Queen; Smith v The Queen; Presley v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) [2016] HCA 30 Perish, Anthony v R; Perish, Andrew v R; Lawton, Matthew v R [2016] NSWCCA 89 Plomp v The Queen [1953] HCA 44; 110 CLR 234 R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8; 2 All ER 1 R v Phan [2001] NSWCCA 29; 53 NSWLR 480 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 Shamoun v R [2015] NSWCCA 246 The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618 The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1; 236 CLR 397 Category: Principal judgment Parties: MG – Applicant AE – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: Mr P Strickland SC – Applicant MG Mr G Brady SC/Mr S Howell - Applicant AE Ms M Cinque SC – Respondent Crown