HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
In November 2021, Ian Matthew Conway was convicted on a charge of murdering Christopher Ward on 8 March 2021.
The incident that resulted in the death of Mr Ward occurred at Mr Conway's unit in Broadmeadow. The individuals present at the time were Mr Conway and his wife Katrina Coghlan, Mr Ward, and Ms Renee Lee who lived in the same building. Mr Ward and Mr Conway were both affected by methylamphetamine, with Mr Ward behaving erratically earlier in the afternoon. According to Ms Lee, after Mr Ward had settled down Mr Conway produced two knives and challenged Mr Ward to a "muck around" play fight. Mr Ward, sitting next to Ms Lee on the couch, refused. Mr Conway, standing across a coffee table from Mr Ward, lunged at him and stabbed him in the abdomen.
It was not disputed that Mr Ward died as a result of internal bleeding following the knife wound to his abdomen, not that Mr Conway caused that wound. At trial, Mr Conway gave evidence that he had acted in self-defence, having simply responded when Mr Ward was walking towards him holding a knife. Mr Conway appealed his conviction on two grounds.
The first ground was that the trial judge failed to discharge the jury on the basis of evidence given by Ms Lee, on three distinct occasions, indicating that Mr Conway had a propensity for violence and had committed a robbery. The second ground was that the conviction was unreasonable and unsupportable on the evidence.
The Court (Basten AJA, Cavanagh and Dhanji JJ agreeing) held, granting leave to appeal but dismissing the appeal:
As to ground 1 - discharge application
(1) Leave to appeal was required because the grounds were not limited to a question of law alone. Due to the seriousness of the charge and the sentence of 16 years imprisonment it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal against the conviction: at [1].
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1) applied
(2) The challenge to the refusal to discharge the jury required a finding that there had been a miscarriage of justice, pursuant to the third limb of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act. However, the applicant did not need to establish that there was no "substantial" miscarriage: [32]-[34].
Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22; Hamide v R (2019) 101 NSWLR 455; [2019] NSWCCA 219 discussed; Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531; [2012] HCA 29; Edwards v The Queen (2021) 273 CLR 585; [2021] HCA 28; Hofer v The Queen (2021) 274 CLR 351; [2021] HCA 36; Ilievski v R; Nolan v R (No 2) [2023] NSWCCA 248 applied
(3) This issue turned on remarks made by Ms Lee during cross-examination. The remarks should be viewed in the context of the course and content of her evidence as well as other aspects of the trial: [6]. Ms Lee's views regarding the characters of the applicant were expressed in response to questions asking her to explain her own conduct towards them. No intention to malign the appellant should be drawn Ms Lee's evidence: [40].
(4) The three passing references viewed objectively, and having regard to the directions given by the trial judge, did not have a prejudicial effect sufficient to deprive the appellant of a fair trial and could not realistically have affected the verdict of the jury: [34], [47].
As to ground 2 - unreasonable verdict
(5) A ground asserting that the verdict was unreasonable requires the court to form its own view, based upon an independent assessment of the evidence, as to whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused; if it does, it must consider whether the doubt is one which the jury, having the benefit of hearing the evidence, could properly have resolved: [69].
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 applied
(6) Reading the whole of the evidence the Court entertained no reasonable doubt as to the prosecution case. The evidence was not inherently implausible or inconsistent with objective facts. The jury might have disbelieved key aspects of Ms Lee's evidence and accepted the possibility that the appellant was telling the truth, but they did not. Viewed objectively, the appellant's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the truth and reliability of Ms Lee's account: [75], [77], [78].