AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 21 May 2014

R v Jones

[2014] NSWSC 696

Homicide
CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR MURDER CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE

Citation: R v Jones [2014] NSWSC 696
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 May 2014
Judge(s): Button J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of the deceased, a woman who had checked into a motel room with him in Coffs Harbour at around 7:00pm on 12 December 2012. The deceased was last seen alive on CCTV footage at a nearby shopping centre at 7:14pm that evening. Her body was later discovered, and the Crown alleged the accused had inflicted fatal violence upon her.

The Crown case was entirely circumstantial. The forensic pathologist, Dr Beer, offered equivocal evidence on cause of death. He proposed asphyxia as the likely cause but conceded there were no physical signs of asphyxia on the body, and he could not rule out death by methylamphetamine overdose as a reasonable possibility.

Defence counsel indicated he would not be calling evidence and then applied for a verdict by direction, arguing the Crown case was insufficient to go to the jury on either murder or manslaughter.

  • Whether there was any evidence that the accused performed an act that caused the death of the deceased, as required for both murder and manslaughter
  • Whether there was any evidence of the mental elements required for murder (an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm)
  • Whether, in a circumstantial case, the Crown was required to exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence at the close of the Crown case in order to survive a no-case application

Decision

Button J refused the application. His Honour acknowledged that Dr Beer's evidence was not of great force, and accepted that if the Crown's case rested solely on the co-presence of the accused and deceased in the motel room together with that pathological evidence, the application would have had greater attraction.

However, Button J identified a substantial body of other undisputed circumstantial evidence. This included: facial injuries to the deceased (including a broken nose) and other bodily injuries found at post mortem; a fresh chemical burn to the deceased's abdomen; the deceased's body being found "hogtied" with a separate ligature around her neck; nine of ten false fingernails dislodged; and the motel room in a dishevelled state suggesting a struggle. Blood containing a DNA mixture from both the accused and the deceased was found on the motel room wall.

His Honour also identified multiple acts by the accused capable of demonstrating a consciousness of guilt. These included hiding the body, disposing of the deceased's belongings, attempting to falsely implicate a taxi driver, offering payment to be taken away from Coffs Harbour, and making a false account involving armed men. Evidence of the accused's methylamphetamine use during the relevant period, combined with expert evidence that the drug can cause extreme aggression, was also noted.

On the law, Button J confirmed that a verdict by direction is available only where there is simply no evidence of an essential element of the offence. In a circumstantial case, the Crown is not required to exclude all alternative rational hypotheses consistent with innocence at the close of the Crown case. The application on both murder and manslaughter was therefore refused.

Orders Made

• Application for a verdict by direction with regard to both forms of homicide is refused.

Key Takeaways

  • A verdict by direction should only be granted where there is simply no evidence of an essential element of the offence charged, applying the principles confirmed in May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 and Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207.
  • In a circumstantial case, the Crown is not required to exclude all rational hypotheses consistent with innocence at the close of its case in order to survive a no-case application, as confirmed by R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39.
  • Weak or equivocal expert evidence on a key element such as cause of death does not necessarily render a Crown case insufficient where other circumstantial evidence, taken together, is capable of supporting the inference that the accused caused the deceased's death.
  • Conduct capable of demonstrating consciousness of guilt forms part of the overall circumstantial case and may contribute to the sufficiency of evidence at a no-case application.
  • The Supreme Court treated the test at this stage as one of bare sufficiency, not persuasive force: the question was whether any evidence of each element existed, not whether the evidence was strong enough to compel a particular verdict.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Cases:
- May v O'Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; 92 CLR 654
- Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207
- R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39

Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the judgment.