Crime Cases

He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985)

• Collected a suitcase containing heroin without his knowledge on arival to Australia

• High Court found criminal offences must require mes rea unless clearly states they are strict liability

• Established crime cannot be committed without both elements of crime unless specifically identified to be strict liability

Ryan v The Queen (1967)

• Ryan fatally shot a service station worker during a robbery but claimed the gun discharged accidentally

• High Court found that despite not voluntarily committing the crime of murder, his willing participation in the robbery satisfied the actus reus, though the mens rea was limited

• Demonstrates criminal liability’s dependance on the voluntary act and mental element

Osland v The Queen (1985)

• Osland planned and convinced her son to kill her husband, but was not present for the act itself. Prior to the murder she drugged her husband, and afterward she helped bury his body.

• High Court found Osland as a principle offender through joint criminal enterprise.

• Illustrates the levels of criminal liability even if an offender is not present.

Bugmy v The Queen (2013)

• Mr Bugmy was an Indigenous man with a significantly disadvantaged background, and was charged with assault and grevious bodily harm of 3 prison officers

• The High Court found his disadvantaged background was relevant to his sentancing and allowed his appeal.

• Demonstrates how social factors have an effect on criminal behaviour, as well as how an offenders circumstances should be considered during sentancing & post sentancing considerations.

Blaue v R (1975)

• Blaue stabbed a woman, and upon arrival to the hospital, she refused a blood transfusion because of her JW faith and died. He argued her refusal to medical treatment broke the chain of causation.

• His appeal was refused, but the offender was convicted of manslaughter

• Shows offenders actions need to be the substantial cause of harm to the victim, and also demonstrates principles of ‘taking a victim as they are’.

DPP V SB (2020)

• SB was arrested for assaulting & hindering the police, believing it was nessecary for preventing further offending under s99 of LEPRA

• Supreme Court held an arrest is lawful is an officer believes it’s necessary as set out in LEPRA s99

• Demonstrated police powers of arrest must satisfy statutory requirements of LEPRA

Poidevin v Semaan (2013)

• Police attemped to seize Semaan’s phone but failed to identify why, and arrested Semaan when he resisted

• NSWCCA found that under LEPRA police must identify why they are excersising their power

• Shows police powers are subject to statutory safeguards to protect citizens

R v Swaffeild (1998)

• Swaffeild had previously been arrested and charged with breaking and entery as well as arson, but their was limited evidence and he was released. He later admited unknowingly to a recording undercover officer that he had committed the crime and was arrested

• High Court found that unfairly obtained evidence undermines a suspects right to silence. The recording was excluded from evidence and the offender was again aquitted

• Evidence must be obtained fairly to be admissable

Maxwell v The Queen (1996)

• Maxwell had been arrested and charged with murder, but after plea negotiations was charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The Trial Judge refused to accept the deal as he did not agree with the lesser charge

• Initially the NSWCCA found that both the defendant had a right to make plea negotiations, and the judge could choose to reject a charge negotiation. When taken to the High Court, it found that unless a judge has reasonable suspicision that a plea was entered under duress, they must accept pleas & negotiations.

• Demonstrates the right to offenders taking plea bargians, and ensures judicial power/discretion is appropriately monitored

Deitrich v The Queen

• The offender was charged if a serious drug offence, and was refused legal aid. Unable to afford a private lawyer, Deitrich was tried and convicted while unrepresented.

• High Court found that while defendants don’t have a right to legal representation, being unrepresented for serious cases unfairly impacts the outcome, and a trial must be halted until representation ca be arranged.

• Highlighted the need of Legal Aid and how it impacts the trial process

R v Jurisic (1998)

• After being charged with 3 counts of dangerous driving, and despite have numerous priors, the offender was charged with 9 months home suspension. The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was too leniant.

• NSWCCA increased the sentence to 2 years imprisonment, making NSW’s first ever guideline judgement

• Demonstrates detterence and retribution, as well as introducing guidline judgements

R v Meredith (2022)

• After committing a serious offence, the offender showed genuine remorse and had strong prospects of rehabilitation

• The court reduced his sentence, giving significant weight to the mitigating factors

• Demonstrates rehabilitation and mitigating factors affecting sentencing

R v Wood (2018)

• The offence was violent and involved excessive and gratuotus cruelty towards the victim

• The court applied aggrivating factors and significantly increased the sentence

• Clear example of the role of the victim and agrivating factors in sentencing

R v Damaso (2022)

• The offender spread an explict image of another person unconsentually, and showed some remorse, so it was determined imprisonment was not necassary

• The court imposed a Community Corrections Order

• Demonstrates alternatives to imprisonment and mitigating factors

R v Jawid (2022)

• The offender committed murder but was substantially impaired by mental health issues

• Rather then imprisonment, the offender was detained in a mental health facility

• Demonstrates penalties reflecting individual circumstances and levels of culpability

R v Whyte (2002)

• The offender was sentanced to the guideline judgement for dangerous driving, but asked the CCA to consider whether these guideline judgements were valid and if judges were obligated to follow them

• CCA found guideline judgemnts are valid and must be taken into account during sentancing, though judges retain discretion to deviate from them

• Settled debates about discretion and guideline judgements

R v Garth (No. 2) (2017)

• The offender was involved in a one-punch (accidental) killing. This fell under mandatory sentancing provisions for murder

• The court was required to impose the madatory sentance despite the offenders remorse, lack of criminal record, and accidental nature of the crime.

• Example of the issues that can arrise from mandatory sentancing and the limiting of judicial discretion in these cases.

R v Singh (2012)

• The offender killed his wife, and used the defense of provocation as she had been unfaithful to him. This reduced the charge and conviction to manslaughter which carried a much lighter sentence

• Ther verdict outraged the public and media, triggering subsequent amendments to the legislation that made the provocation defense much harder to achieve and use

• Demonstrates the use of defenses and failure in judicial discretion, as well as the effect of interaction between community values, media pressure, and law reform.

R v Fletcher (2020)

• The victims provided impact statements at the sentencing hearing that detailed the level of harm caused by the murder of their brother/father.

• The court treated this harm as an aggrivating factor, resulting in a higher sentence

• Example of the effectiveness of aggrivating factors in sentencing the the role of victims & impact statements in sentencing.

R v Morgan (2004)

• The offender was reffered to circle sentancing and recieved a more culturally appropriate trial and sentencing process than would be acheivable through traditional court procedures.

• A key case for exploring alternative sentancing decisions and restorative justice

R v Bailey (2021)

• The offender spent significant time on remand while awaiting trial

• The court factored the time already spent in custody into the final sentence

• Shows post sentencing considerations & time spent on remand’s impact

R v LMW (1999) — Corey Davis

• a 10 y/o was charged with the murder of 6 y/o Corey Davis after pushing him into a river, knowing he could not swim. The defence argured on the principle of doli incapax, and used multiple expert witnesses who confirmed that the offender was mentally a few years behind, making him unable to understand the culpability of his actions

• He was found not guilty, as the prosecution could not prove the offender understood his actions were morally and legally wrong.

• Key case for debates around the age of criminal reponsibilty

RP v The Queen (2016)

• A young man was tried and convicted of sexually abusing his younger brother when the offender wass 11-12 and the victim was 6. Initially, doli incapax was rebutted and the offender was found guilty

• The High Court found that the original judge made an error by assuming that the boy knew that his actions were morally wrong, and on further inspection of the offenders limited intellectual capacity, he was aquitted

• Set precedent of doli incapax meaning that the prosecution must prove the offender knew it was morally wrong outside of just being naughty, mean, or teasing behaviour.

Janine Balding Case

• A gang of homeless adolesence made a plan to kidnap, rape, torture and kill a young woman. Later that night, they abducted the victim from a parking lot and brutally assaulted and murdered her. Two of the gang who participate in the rape and murder were Elliott (16) and Blessington (14). They, plus Jamieson (22), were charged and convicted of the murder, recieving life sentances.

• The sentencing of the minors became a topic of extreme debate, esepcially because Blessington was still (if only just) in the threshold for doli incapax, and both became the youngest people in Australia convicted of murder to be given the maximum sentence.

• Their appeal on the grounds of a missing staple in their court documents was rejected

• The two other minors convicted in this crime — Wilmot & Arrow, both 15 — were indicted on accessory to murder. Wilmot served 8 years, and Arrow was sentenced to a 3 year good behaviour bond and 19 months in custody

Jayant Patel Case (2005 - 2013)

• A surgeon was linked to numorous patient deaths through gross negligence, and after the 2005 scandal, the offender fled to the US. He was extradited back to Australia for prosecution

• He was convicted of manslaughter and grevious bodily harm, but that conviction was later quashed in 2012, and was only charged and convicted with fraud in 2013.

• Strong case for extradition processes, but cases can still fail.

The Wonderland Club (1998)

• The Club was an international online pornography ring. In 1998, simultanteous, coordinated arrests of dozens of members were carried out across multiple countries.

• Demonstrates effective transnational law enforcement cooperation in takling crime that couldn’t be addressed by any single country’s police force alone

Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (2012)

• The offender, a militia leader in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was the first person ever convicted by the ICC. He was found guilty of the war crime of conscripting and using child soldies.

• Significant for the ICC’s legitmacy and effectiveness, and spotlighted child soldier usage as a prosecutable war crime.