Citation: Doolan v R [2025] NSWCCA 190
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 14 November 2025
Judges: Ward P; Rigg J; Coleman J
Background
Following a jury trial in the Supreme Court at Forbes, the applicant was convicted on 13 March 2023 of the murder of a man who died from blunt force trauma to the head in the early hours of 23 January 2021. The deceased had been staying at the applicant's mother's house in Forbes. The Crown alleged that the applicant, who had been drinking heavily that evening, stopped at the house while walking home, turned off the power to lure the deceased outside, and then attacked him by punching, kicking, kneeing, and jumping or stomping on him. The applicant was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.
The Crown's case rested substantially on the evidence of two witnesses: Corey Bouwens, a close friend who was present at the scene, and Rickard Radburn, another friend who arrived shortly after and called emergency services. Both witnesses admitted they had given false accounts to police on the night of the incident but maintained the substance of their evidence at trial. The defence case was that the Crown could not exclude, beyond reasonable doubt, the reasonable possibility that Bouwens himself had contributed at least one blow to the deceased.
The applicant did not appeal his sentence. He sought an extension of time and leave to appeal his conviction on the sole ground that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. Leave was required because the ground raised a question of fact alone under s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- Whether the verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, applying the test in Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123.
- Whether the jury could reasonably have accepted the evidence of Bouwens and Radburn, given their admitted initial false accounts and other alleged inadequacies in their evidence.
- Whether the Crown had excluded beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that Bouwens inflicted at least one blow to the deceased.
- What weight should be given to the blood spatter evidence and the tendency evidence relied upon by the applicant.
Decision
The Court unanimously granted the extension of time and leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. Ward P delivered the principal judgment, with Rigg J and Coleman J each adding short concurring reasons.
On the blood spatter evidence, the Court accepted that the expert evidence of Detective Flippence indicated more blood would have been expected on Bouwens' clothing if he had been involved in the attack at the back of the house. However, the Court noted that blood could have been transferred onto Bouwens' clothes simply by being in proximity to the deceased out the back, or by approaching the applicant at the front of the house. The evidence did not compel the inference that Bouwens was uninvolved.
On the tendency evidence, the Court gave it little weight. The prior incident relied upon to establish Bouwens' alleged tendency to violently assault intoxicated men was an isolated occurrence, and little was known about the circumstances or motivation behind it. The Court held that a single prior incident of that kind did not make it more likely that Bouwens participated in the assault of the deceased.
On the central question of witness credibility, the Court emphasised the deference owed to the jury's advantage in directly seeing and hearing Bouwens and Radburn give evidence. Rigg J noted that the traumatic circumstances the witnesses found themselves in, combined with their loyalty to the applicant and the complications arising from their initial false accounts, were capable of explaining the inconsistencies in their evidence. Coleman J was satisfied that the evidence established the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that no basis had been shown to go behind the jury's assessment of credibility. The verdict was found to be open to the jury and not unreasonable.
Orders Made
- Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal granted to the date of filing of the application.
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal reaffirmed that an appellate court must give significant deference to a jury's advantage in assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses it has seen and heard directly.
- Where two key Crown witnesses admitted giving initially false accounts to police, that fact alone does not render their evidence incapable of supporting a conviction, provided the jury had the opportunity to assess their explanations in full context.
- Tendency evidence based on a single isolated prior incident, where the circumstances and motivation for that incident are largely unknown, will generally attract little weight in establishing a propensity for a particular kind of conduct.
- Blood spatter expert evidence indicating an absence of expected blood on a third party's clothing does not necessarily exclude that person's involvement where innocent explanations for the absence exist.
- Under s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), an applicant challenging a conviction on a question of fact alone requires both leave to appeal and, where the application is out of time, an extension of time; the grant of both does not guarantee the appeal will succeed on the merits.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Cases
- Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
- Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430; [1945] HCA 16
- The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 3
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- The King v ZT [2025] HCA 9; (2025) 99 ALJR 676
- ZL v R [2023] NSWCCA 279