Citation: R v Hunyh [2004] NSWCCA 79
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 22 March 2004
Judge(s): Studdert J (presiding), James J, Dunford J
Background
The appellant stood trial in the District Court on nine counts arising from a home invasion and robbery on the night of 3 August 2001. Two men had been lured to a house under the pretence of a card game, where a group of armed men assaulted them, tied them up overnight, and stole their possessions. The following day, one victim was taken to a motor registry where the registration of his car was transferred to one of the offenders.
After a three-week trial, the jury acquitted the appellant on seven of the nine counts but returned guilty verdicts on two: detain for advantage and armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. Judge Dodd sentenced the appellant to three years imprisonment with a two-year non-parole period, backdated to his arrest on 4 August 2001. The appellant was released on parole in August 2003 and subsequently appealed against his convictions.
The appeal raised two grounds, though only the first required determination: that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the verdicts of guilty on two counts were unreasonable and incapable of being supported by the evidence, having regard to the totality of the evidence at trial, including the inconsistencies arising from the jury's acquittals on the remaining seven counts.
Decision
The central issue at trial was the reliability of identification evidence. Both victims had identified the appellant as one of the offenders present during the assault and overnight detention. However, the jury's acquittals on seven counts necessarily conveyed that it harboured a reasonable doubt about that identification evidence.
The guilty verdicts could only be explained on the basis that the jury relied on the appellant's presence at the motor registry. Video footage from the registry placed the appellant there, and the jury may have rejected his explanation for being present. However, this reasoning was fatally undermined by the evidence of the victim who had been taken to the registry. That victim gave evidence that the appellant was not one of the two men who accompanied him there.
Studdert J concluded that, considering the whole of the evidence, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The Crown conceded the same position, accepting the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be sustained. James J and Dunford J agreed without additional reasons.
Orders Made
- Appeal allowed
- Convictions and sentences quashed
- Verdicts of acquittal entered
Key Takeaways
- A conviction is unreasonable where the jury's own acquittals on related counts, arising from the same events, reveal that the evidential basis for the guilty verdicts cannot withstand scrutiny.
- Where a jury acquits on multiple counts that depended on identification evidence, convictions on remaining counts that rely on the same or lesser evidence may be incapable of standing.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal entered verdicts of acquittal rather than ordering a retrial, consistent with the Crown's concession that no reasonable jury could properly convict on the available evidence.
- Video evidence placing a defendant at a location associated with an offence does not independently establish guilt where a key witness gives direct evidence that the defendant was not present at the relevant time.
- Crown concessions that verdicts are unreasonable, where responsibly made, will be treated as such by the Court of Criminal Appeal and acted upon accordingly.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No specific legislation or cases were cited in the text of the judgment as provided. The applicable principle is the common law ground that a verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, as recognised in Australian criminal appeals.