AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
3
Court of Criminal Appeal 9 February 2001

R v Piccin

[2001] NSWCCA 35

Assault & violencePublic order & justice offences
MALICIOUS WOUNDING STALKING INCONSISTENT VERDICTS CRIMES ACT S562AB DISCHARGE OF JURY CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSED.

Citation: Piccin v R [2001] NSWCCA 35
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 9 February 2001
Judge(s): Giles JA, James J, Hulme J

Background

The appellant was a Thai-born woman who had been in a long-term personal and professional relationship with the complainant, a significantly younger Thai man who had worked at her restaurant. By 1999, the relationship had deteriorated badly, coinciding with serious financial difficulties for the appellant.

The prosecution arose from two incidents in April and May 1999. In the first, the complainant alleged that the appellant produced a knife during a meeting in a parked car in Elizabeth Bay and cut him across the chest and chin, saying she would kill him. In the second, the appellant was alleged to have stalked the complainant in Pyrmont while armed with a knife.

The appellant was tried in the District Court before Judge Luland and a jury on charges including wounding with intent to murder, malicious wounding, malicious damage to a motor vehicle, being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, and stalking with intent to cause fear of personal injury. The jury acquitted her on the more serious charges and convicted her on malicious wounding and stalking. She appealed against both convictions.

  • Whether the jury's verdicts were impermissibly inconsistent: specifically, whether acquittal on wounding with intent to murder necessarily undermined the conviction for malicious wounding arising from the same incident.
  • Whether errors occurred in the trial relating to the discharge of a juror and the handling of character evidence.
  • Whether the stalking conviction on Count 3(b) could stand in light of issues arising at trial.

Decision

On the inconsistent verdicts argument, the Court rejected the appellant's submission that the acquittal on Count 1(a) was logically incompatible with the guilty verdict on Count 1(b). The trial judge had correctly directed the jury that proof of an intention to kill required more than reliance on words alone, and had warned against giving too much weight to threats uttered in the heat of the moment. The Court found it entirely plausible that a jury could be satisfied the appellant maliciously wounded the complainant without also being satisfied she intended to kill him. The verdicts were not inconsistent.

On the stalking conviction (Count 3(b)), the Court reached a different conclusion. The appeal against that conviction was upheld and the conviction was quashed. The Court did not elaborate extensively in the excerpted reasoning, but the result was that only the malicious wounding conviction survived.

On the question of sentence in respect of the surviving Count 1(b) conviction, the Court did not proceed to re-sentence on the day of the appeal. Instead, it directed the parties to file submissions and evidence within specified timeframes so the matter could be reconsidered by the same three judges.

Orders Made

  • Appeal against conviction on Count 1(b) (malicious wounding) dismissed.
  • Appeal against conviction on Count 3(b) (stalking) upheld; that conviction quashed.
  • Appellant directed to file any application and written submissions regarding sentence on Count 1(b) within 21 days, together with any supporting evidence.
  • Crown directed to file responsive submissions within a further 14 days.
  • Matter listed before the Registrar approximately seven weeks hence for the same bench to reconvene and deal with the sentencing question.

Key Takeaways

  • A jury's acquittal on a more serious charge does not automatically render a conviction on a lesser, alternative charge inconsistent, provided the jury had a rational and properly directed basis for distinguishing between the two.
  • Where a trial judge correctly warns the jury against over-reliance on words uttered during a confrontation as evidence of intent, the jury is entitled to reject intent to murder while accepting that a wounding occurred.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the stalking conviction challenge on Count 3(b), demonstrating that appeal courts will examine each conviction independently even where multiple counts arise from a related series of events.
  • Inconsistent verdicts arguments require more than a theoretical tension between findings; the appellant must demonstrate that the verdicts are logically irreconcilable on any view of the evidence the jury could properly have accepted.
  • Sentencing following a partial appeal success may be deferred for further submissions, particularly where the outcome on conviction affects the original sentencing foundation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 562AB (stalking offence)

Cases cited: No specific cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.