Haines v R [2018] NSWCCA 269

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Haines v R [2018] NSWCCA 269 Hearing dates: 26 October 2018 Decision date: 28 November 2018 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL; Davies J; Button J Decision: In relation to the conviction appeal, the orders are as follows:

(1) Leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 16 is refused.

(2) Leave to appeal in respect of Grounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 is granted but the appeal in respect of those grounds is dismissed.

In relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the orders are as follows:

(1) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.

(2) The appeal against sentence is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – two counts of murder – insulin administered to two elderly residents of aged care facility – applicant registered nurse working on night shift – motive and opportunity established – circumstantial case – whether defence counsel failed to follow instructions – whether Crown relied upon coincidence and propensity reasoning – whether the two murders could be properly characterised as a single transaction – whether hearing two counts of murder together gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether evidence in one count could be used as evidence in the other count by jury – whether evidence of admissions by applicant wrongly admitted – whether Crown's closing address gave rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge's summing up was unfair and unbalanced – whether guilty verdict was unreasonable and unable to be supported by the evidence – appeal dismissed – SENTENCE APPEAL – Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 21A(2)(n) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1) Criminal Appeal Rules – r 4 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – ss 21, 29(1) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 55, 90, 98, 100(2), 101, 104(4), 137, 189(1)(a) Cases Cited: Alkhair v R [2016] NSWCCA 4 AP v R [2013] NSWCCA 189 Aravena v R [2015] NSWCCA 288 Bin Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283 BJS v R [2011] NSWCCA 239 Castle v The Queen; Bucca v The Queen [2016] HCA 46; 91 ALJR 93 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 Davidson v R [2009] NSWCCA 150; 75 NSWLR 150 Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46; 232 CLR 67 Germakian v R [2007] NSWCCA 373; 70 NSWLR 467 Golossian v R [2013] NSWCCA 311 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Langelaar v R [2016] NSWCCA 143 Lars et al (1994) 73 A Crim R 91 Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63;181 CLR 487 MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 Mahmood v State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 1; 232 CLR 397 Matthews v R [2013] NSWCCA 187 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 Nudd v R [2006] HCA 9; 80 ALJR 614 O'Leary v The King [1946] HCA 44; 73 CLR 566 R v ARS [2011] NSWCCA 266 R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189;106 A Crim R 510 R v Gibbs [2004] ACTSC 63; 146 A Crim R 503 R v Haines [2016] NSWSC 1824 R v Kray [1970] 1 QB 125 R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; 52 NSWLR 82 R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97; 145 A Crim R 304 R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 54) [2016] NSWSC 654 R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; 192 CLR 159 R v Tedesco (2003) 85 SASR 66 R v XY [2013] NSWCCA 121; 84 NSWLR 363 Romolo v R [2018] NSWCCA 3 RPS v R [2000] HCA 3; 199 CLR 620 SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; 170 CLR 573 TKWJ v R [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124 Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Megan Jean Haines – Applicant Regina – Respondent Crown Representation: Counsel: C Waterstreet – Applicant E Balodis – Respondent Crown