Dowling v R

Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW)|2020-09-14|Before: Basten JA, Price J, Wright J, Yeldham J

Solicitors: McGowan Lawyers (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/311099 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Citation: [2018] NSWDC 367 Date of Decision: 06 May 2018 Before: Lerve DCJ File Number(s): 2016/311099

Judgment

BASTEN JA: On the night of 12/13 March 2012, Luke Doyle, Tracy Dowling and a third person ingested oxycodone at the house of a friend in Young in central New South Wales. At about midnight, Luke Doyle, who had become somnolent and had vomited, was placed in Ms Dowling's utility. There was talk amongst those present of taking Mr Doyle to hospital. However, Ms Dowling drove to her home on the other side of Young. She left Mr Doyle in the vehicle, entered her home and went to bed. Mr Doyle was discovered on the ground beside the vehicle in the early hours of the morning by Ms Dowling's mother when she returned from a night shift at a local aged care centre. Mr Doyle was dead at that time.

Evidence as to time of death

The evidence as to when Mr Doyle died potentially fell into three categories, namely (i) objective evidence, in the sense of professional medical opinion; (ii) eyewitness accounts of his state during the course of the critical hour or so around midnight, and (iii) inferences which might be drawn from the surrounding circumstances of the drug taking and related events. However, these categories were not entirely distinct: for example, the surrounding circumstances were likely to weigh significantly in assessing the evidence of eyewitnesses who were with Mr Doyle at the relevant time. Nevertheless, to the extent that the objective evidence is available, it is convenient to deal with that first. Much of the evidence of the lay witnesses turned on findings as to reliability and credibility. The judge's assessment of these factors is less readily open to review by an appeal court which did not have the benefit of sitting through the trial, listening to the evidence and observing the witnesses give their evidence.
Before turning to the evidence, it should be observed that the Court has the benefit of detailed and careful reasons by the trial judge, identifying intermediate findings of fact, assessing the reliability of key witnesses, and providing careful explanations as to why particular findings were made.

(a) objective evidence

Two events on the evening of Monday, 12 March 2012 were recorded on CCTV footage. First, Luke Doyle, Matthew Hennock and the applicant went to Woolworths BWS in Young and stole bottles of alcohol, which they intended to exchange for drugs. The theft occurred between 7:57pm-8:05pm. Secondly, Mr Hennock and Mr Doyle went to Young District Hospital to obtain a fitpack containing clean needles, an event which occurred at 10:33pm. The OxyContin tablets, if they had been obtained by that time, had clearly not been ingested.
It is necessary to provide a brief outline of what occurred thereafter, before returning to objectively established facts.
After 10:45pm, the applicant, Mr Hennock and Mr Doyle were at the home of Craig Apps in Taylor Street, Young. Mr Apps traded the alcohol or other goods for three 80mg OxyContin tablets. The applicant, Hennock and Doyle injected oxycodone. Both Mr Apps and Mr Hennock were alerted to an adverse reaction of Mr Doyle. Mr Hennock's evidence was that he, with assistance from Mr Apps, carried Mr Doyle out of Mr Apps' house, down some steps, out to the applicant's utility, and placed him in the front passenger seat. He said he was assisted in the street by a third person, later identified as Trent Lovegrove. At that stage Mr Hennock said the applicant was outside near the utility and would have known that they intended to take Mr Doyle to hospital. Mr Hennock said he ran inside the house to obtain his bumbag and Mr Doyle's jumper. When he came out again the utility was gone.
Mr Hennock then went to the home of an acquaintance, Julian Hodge, and several unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the applicant and Mr Doyle on their mobiles. Telephone records indicated that about eight calls were made between 00:59 and 2:02am. It may be inferred that Mr Hennock arrived at Mr Hodge's home at about 12:50am.
The next sighting of Mr Hennock captured on CCTV footage showed him at a BP service station between 2:53 and 3:24am. Trent Lovegrove was there at the same time. He told Mr Lovegrove that he went there to buy a sandwich for Mr Doyle for when he woke up. From the BP service station, Mr Hennock went to the Young District Hospital, being captured outside the hospital on CCTV footage at 3:53am.
The significance of these events was threefold. First, the OxyContin must have been consumed by Mr Doyle at a time after about 10:45pm and before 12:45am. Because it was necessary for Mr Hennock and Mr Doyle to get from the hospital to Mr Apps' house, obtain, crush and take the OxyContin, it is not likely that the consumption occurred until after 11:00pm. There must also have been a period between Mr Doyle taking the OxyContin and being placed in the utility, and a further period before Mr Hennock arrived at Mr Hodge's house where the telephone calls were made. However, the applicant must have left Mr Apps' house sometime between about 11:30pm and 12:45am. The applicant told police in a record of interview undertaken in 2016 that she left Mr Apps' house at around 6am: as the prosecutor submitted, that could not have been correct. Mr Lovegrove gave evidence that the utility did not drive away until an hour after Mr Doyle was placed in it. This evidence did not accord with that of Mr Hennock or Mr Apps and is unlikely to be correct.
Mr Hodge rang Mr Apps shortly after Hennock arrived, to be told the applicant had left "about 20 minutes ago". Mr Hodge's statement had the various events taking place an hour early than the telephone records indicated; it should be accepted that his recollection of the timing was one hour out. Mr Coyle, who was living with Mr Hodge and had provided a statement to police on 29 March 2012, gave evidence that Mr Hennock arrived at about 1:00am. [9] He described him as "frantic". Mr Hodge also rang the hospital to confirm Mr Doyle had not arrived. Mr Hodge's evidence of numerous telephone calls was consistent with a distraught Matthew Hennock trying to find his friend in trouble.
Secondly, although aspects of Mr Hennock's evidence were clearly unreliable, his evidence that he intended that Mr Doyle be taken to the hospital, which was largely unchallenged, was confirmed by the timing of the telephone calls, the visit to the BP service station and the attendance at the hospital. Mr Hennock's evidence was that, after placing Luke Doyle in the vehicle, he said: [10] "A. … I've gone upstairs to grab stuff. I've come out and she was gone, so-- Q. Literally, what, two minutes? A. Wouldn't be long. Yeah, wouldn't have been longer than that."
He was cross-examined to suggest that he was mistaken in that he remembered the applicant "standing in front of the ute" when they were putting Mr Doyle into the vehicle. He was firm in his conviction that he had placed Mr Doyle in the vehicle, gone into the house for two minutes and returning with his bumbag and a jumper, and had found that the applicant had already driven off. It was not put to him that Mr Doyle was left unattended in the utility for an hour.
The next established time related to the discovery of Mr Doyle's body beside the vehicle by the applicant's mother. She arrived home at around 7:30am on 13 March. She gave her occupation as "assistant in nursing"; she was not a registered nurse. There was no challenge to the evidence that she had checked Mr Doyle's pulse in his neck and hand but realised before doing so that he was dead. [11] She immediately went back to her car, got her phone and rang triple-0. Whilst she was on the phone, she went inside to find her daughter and said she was "in bed, sound asleep." [12] The conversation when her daughter woke was recorded including her statements to her daughter that Luke Doyle was dead. Ms Dowling recounted the conversation in the following terms: [13] "A. 'Oh what the fuck's going on?' I said. 'Luke's out the front, dead. What have youse fucking been doing?' Q. Did she respond? A. 'He's not. He's not, mum. He was drunk.' I said, 'He's not. He's fucking dead.' I was very cranky, very upset. So with that, I took the sheet out and covered Luke's body …."

(b) medical evidence

An autopsy was carried out on the deceased by Dr Szentmariay. His evidence supported the uncontroversial finding that Mr Doyle died from "acute multidrug toxicity". [14] That evidence was supported by the evidence of a forensic pharmacologist, Dr Farrar, who identified the quantity of oxycodone in the blood as four times the maximum therapeutic dose. Dr Szentmariay said that benzodiazepines and opiates "are capable of respiratory depression". [15] The relevant benzodiazepine in the present case was alprazolam, sold under the brand name Xanax. Dr Farrar noted there was evidence of Xanax in the deceased's blood, although not at a level consistent with having consumed and absorbed three or more Xanax tablets. Nevertheless, both Dr Szentmariay and Dr Farrar agreed that it would have a significant effect taken in combination with the oxycodone, in depressing the respiratory system.
Dr Szentmariay also gave evidence of the significance of froth which had been observed near Mr Doyle's head, when he was found on the ground. Dr Szentmariay was firm in his conclusion that foam or froth could only form whilst the person was alive because it required the movement of air, mixing with fluid. [16] He was cross-examined as to the possibility that froth had formed in his mouth sometime prior to him falling to the ground and had been exuded after death. He accepted that was a possibility, though with what appears to be some hesitation. [17]
A consulting forensic pathologist, Dr Duflou, was called in the defence case. He was asked as to the development of froth and whether it occurs only when a person is alive, answering: [18] "No, not at all. Well, development of froth itself occurs in the air spaces while the person is alive - I accept that fully. But its appearances are typically after death, not before death."
That evidence was relied upon in this Court in support of the proposition that Mr Doyle had died prior to being placed in the cabin of the vehicle. However, the evidence of froth was on the ground beside the deceased's head. Further, there were vomit stains inside the vehicle, on the passenger door, on the passenger floor, above the glove box, between the passenger seats and on the roof. Although Mr Doyle had vomited at the house in which the drugs were taken, no explanation was proffered as to how there came to be vomit so widely spread in the vehicle, if he was in fact deceased at the time he was placed in the vehicle. It must be inferred that he was alive when placed in the vehicle.
Dr Szentmariay observed that a side effect of taking oxycodone is that the skin may become "cold and clammy". [19] One of the lay witnesses, Trent Lovegrove, who had assisted in placing Mr Doyle in the vehicle, described him as feeling cold. The judge accepted Mr Lovegrove's description, but, adopting the pathologist's evidence, found it was consistent with the fact that Mr Doyle had undoubtedly taken oxycodone prior to being placed in the vehicle. There was also evidence that, taken intravenously, oxycodone would have an effect within minutes of ingestion.

The primary evidence as to Luke Doyle's state when he was placed in the utility was given by Mr Hennock. He described walking into the lounge room of Mr Apps' home and seeing Mr Doyle "hunched over the side of the lounge." [20] He tried to wake him up, including slapping him and yelling his name. The following exchange took place: [21] "Q. Did he wake up? A. He just sort of mumble - groaned at me. That's - sort of - didn't do much. Q. How would you describe Luke's condition? A. I just thought I would - I'm going to get him in the car to take him to hospital. … Q. What did you do? A. I sort of - I just tried [to] get him to the car and I think Craig [Apps] actually helped me carry him downstairs for a bit. And then out the front, that's when locals walking past and I got him to help me put him in the car.
The "local" (there was no evidence of more than one person) was Trent Lovegrove. [22] Mr Hennock said that Mr Doyle was placed in the passenger seat and then "he slouched over." [23] The examination continued: [24] "Q. What happens next? A. Well, I've - I think I've ran upstairs to grab like, our stuff and that. Q. What was your stuff? A. My bumbag. I grabbed his jumper. I was wearing it the next day, so I think I've grabbed his jumper. And I was - my - I was running up to get it so we could - come back, take him to hospital. That's when I come out and he was gone. Q. He was gone? A. Tracy - Tracy was gone in the ute with Luke, yeah."
Mr Hennock gave further evidence as to his understanding of Mr Doyle's state when he was taking him to the car: [25] "Q. Do you remember at any time, when you were trying to put him in the car, whether you lost your grip on him? And he fell over, or-- A. Yeah, on the stairs. Q. On the stairs? A. Yep. Q. Did Luke react at all to that? A. No. Q. When you put Luke into the car, or into the ute, what was your belief about whether Luke was conscious? Unconscious? A. Well, he wasn't like, awake or anything. But - Q. So he was unconscious? A. Yeah, he was unconscious I suppose. Yeah. Q. Did you know whether he was - did you think he was still alive? A. Yeah. Q. You did? A. Yep. Q. And why did you think that? A. He was still alive. This is just after I was - I was - he was making moans and stuff."
Mr Hennock gave evidence that he had "like crusty around his lips" in the lounge room, but he didn't remember whether he had vomited. He was asked if he remembered seeing or smelling any vomit in the car and said, "I don't think he spewed in the car." [26]
Mr Hennock was quite confused as to what happened thereafter. He wandered the streets for some time, looking for Mr Doyle. His activities, recorded in part, on CCTV and telephone records, were consistent with his concern as to where Mr Doyle was and his belief he was alive, but should have been taken to hospital. First, Mr Hennock said that he walked to the home of Julian Hodge, a trip of no more than a few minutes. Mr Hodge's evidence was that Mr Hennock arrived at about 11:50pm. Mr Hodge died in May 2018, but his statement of 5 April 2012 was admitted in evidence. He said that he had called Craig Apps to find out how long it had been since the applicant took Luke to the hospital. The telephone records indicate that Mr Hodge called the applicant three times between 1:00am and 1:06am on 13 March. It is likely that he did so immediately after Mr Hennock arrived, suggesting, as noted above, and as confirmed by Mr Coyle, that he was an hour early in his timeline and that Mr Hennock arrived at 12:50am, rather than 11:50pm. Mr Hodge called the applicant three more times between 1:13 and 1:30am. He also called Mr Doyle at 1:31am. He gave evidence that he called Mr Apps to be told that the applicant had left "about 20 minutes ago", and that he called Young Hospital, which was confirmed by a statement from a nurse at the hospital, but the timing of these calls is not apparent from the summary of the telephone records.
Between 2:50am and 3:14am, Mr Hennock was at the BP service station. He left the service station and walked to Young Hospital, where he arrived at 3:53am.
Mr Apps also gave evidence of the events in his house. He said that Mr Doyle was sitting in a chair at a table in the kitchen when he fell on to a cow hide rug and vomited. He denied that Mr Doyle had been on the lounge in the lounge room, which was next to the kitchen, [27] although he said the rug was between the two rooms.
Mr Apps' description of Mr Doyle being taken outside to the vehicle involved both him and Mr Hennock. He said that "some young fellow was walking past and give us a hand." [28] He denied that Mr Doyle was dragged along the ground. He was asked where the applicant was when they were putting Mr Doyle in the ute and said: [29] "She was just in - upstairs, getting her stuff together. And by the time we had him in the ute, we yelled out, 'Righto, Tracy. You're wanted.' And she's come down the steps, hopped in the truck. And Matty [Hennock] has gone, 'Hang on. I just got to get my - my bumbag.' And she just took off."
Mr Lovegrove was the person who assisted in the street. He had been staying "across the road" from Mr Apps' house. [30] He gave evidence that Mr Hennock had approached him and asked him to help him "because his mate had dropped." [31] He understood the term "dropped" to mean, "not in a good way", "not dead but not far off it, needs to go to hospital straightaway." [32] He said that Mr Hennock opened the door of the car and he grabbed Mr Doyle around the waist to put him in the car "because they told me they were taking him to the hospital." [33] He said that as they tried to lift him Mr Hennock had lost his grip and the man had hit the ground. [34] He also said that the man had "some white gunk on his shoulder, on his arm" and "his body felt like an icepack". [35] The following exchange continued: "Q. Did you say anything to either Matty or Appsy? A. I told Matty he was dead. Q. What did he say? A. He said, 'He's not. He just needs to get to the hospital'."
Mr Lovegrove also left his house and went to the BP service station at about 3:00am, and saw Mr Hennock there. He said that Mr Hennock "wanted a lift to the hospital and he was also trying to get his mate a sandwich."
Later, in cross-examination, he agreed that he had not checked Mr Doyle's pulse when he noticed how cold he was. He also said that Mr Doyle did not vomit and he did not see or smell any vomit from within the ute. [36]
There were a number of discrepancies between Mr Lovegrove's account and that of Mr Apps and Mr Hennock. One, perhaps of little significance, was his description of Mr Hennock coming across the street to ask him to assist. Neither Mr Hennock nor Mr Apps gave evidence consistent with that description. Secondly, Mr Lovegrove suggested that Mr Hennock had dropped the upper part of Mr Doyle's body when he was trying to manoeuvre him into the ute. The possibility that Mr Doyle had hit his head on the ground at that point was not consistent with the evidence of Dr Szentmariay. Thirdly, as noted above, his belief that Mr Doyle may have been dead turned entirely upon his observation that his body was cold, which, as already noted, was consistent with the consumption of oxycodone. On the other hand, the fact that he recalled neither seeing or smelling vomit on Mr Doyle or in the ute suggests that Mr Doyle vomited whilst in the utility, either on the way to the applicant's home, or after they arrived, as the applicant said in an early statement to police.

Voluntary assumption of duty

It is convenient to deal with the statements made by the applicant in relation to these events in considering her knowledge of the state in which she found Mr Doyle when in her vehicle. Aspects of that evidence are, of course, relevant to his actual state, as well as her belief that he was alive.
The applicant did not give evidence, but there were a number of statements which were tendered by the prosecution. The first matter relied upon was her response to her mother when woken the following morning while her mother was making a triple-0 call. Half speaking to her daughter and half to the person on the call, Heather Dowling said: "What's happened to him, Trace? … No he's dead Trace, he's dead. What happened? I come home found him here … Look at him, Tracey said she was drunk. Were you drunk or him?"
The judge's finding in respect of this evidence was as follows: "[196] To my mind the reaction of the accused to her mother upon being told of Luke Doyle's death is very telling indeed. Her initial reaction to her mother is that Luke Doyle was drunk, not that he was dead. It is plain enough that the news of the fact of Luke's Doyle's death came as a surprise to the accused. I am prepared to find on this evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Luke Doyle was alive at the point in time when the accused and Doyle reached the home of the accused. It follows that I am also satisfied that Luke Doyle was alive at the time that they left Apps' home, whenever that might have been."
The recording in evidence leaves no doubt that, although her responses are not audible, the applicant was denying her mother's statements that Luke Doyle was dead.
The police arrived at the applicant's home at 7:30am. The ambulance arrived at 7:54am. The handwritten record of the conversation between the police officer and the applicant contained brief notes and then some further questions and answers. The notes identified that the applicant had left Craig Apps' place in Taylor Road, Young; not sure what time; with Luke Doyle and continued: "Luke drove - T Dowling tried to help him across passenger seat, dragged him out, checked vital, went inside, got drink - something to eat. Comes back outside 20 min tried again - said he was breathing went back inside - went to bed." There were then references to drugs and persons at Mr Apps' house. She stated that she had gone to sleep in Mr Apps' house and when she woke up she wanted to go home. The notes continued: "She then states she goes outside, 'I saw Luke with bum in the air and he was spewing up. I just wanted to go home.' Luke drove? Yep he drove me home - once at home Dowling T states I tried to get him out, wouldn't wake up. I dragged him out onto ground. Checked he was still breathing, checked his vitals. I then went inside. I got a drink and something to eat. I came back outside, I checked his vitals again. Was he breathing? Was he making any noise? Could you talk to him and would he answer? No, but he was breathing. I just thought he was really drunk. It was getting cold. I just thought he was drunk."
The next statement occurred on the evening of the same day, namely commencing at 4:37pm on Tuesday, 13 March 2012. Her account was lengthy, claiming that she left Mr Apps' house at 6:15 in the morning. After stating that she passed out at Mr Apps' house and woke up to find her handbag upside down, she continued: [37] "I couldn't find the key. I shoved it everything back into my handbag. … all I wanted to do was get out of there. I couldn't find, I couldn't find Doyley anywhere. Went to the car, here's Doyley spewed all through my Ute like I mean he had spewed all through the Ute. I said, 'Come on Doyley man, move over, come on man, come on, we've got to go to, we've got to drive, we've got to drive, we've got to drive we've got to, we've got to go.' 'I can't drive, I can't, I can't.' I said 'Doyley', I said, 'We've got to go now.' Got home to my place thank fuck, I didn't think we were going to make it. Pulls over in the driveway. The driver's door is unlocked, I mean not unlocked but the actual driver's door handle has been taken off. … So you can't open the driver's [seat] door. So I've got Doyley from under the arms like that, I've tried to pull him out and finally like I got him to the side of the seat then I re-gripped him again. I got him again, I'm trying to wake him, … the next minute when I got him to the ground I seen like that he wasn't responsive to me at all. And I was saying, 'Doyley, wake up', and I felt his pulse but he still had a pulse there. And I'm saying to him, 'Mate are you drunk or like are you going to wake up?' And I was shaking him. And he was still like, he was still, 'Fuck off Tracy.' … And then next minute mum come home at 7 o'clock and woke me up and said, 'Doyley's out in the front thing and he's not breathing Tracy.' I said, 'Bullshit mum I only left him there like not even … I didn't even, I just thought he was drunk. … I just though he was inebriated."
The detective then questioned her about whether he was floppy when she was pulling him out of the car and she said: [38] "No because he was bent over spewing on the, on the floor. He just hurled like not even two minutes beforehand."
The officer then asked "which side of the ute did he spew on?" The applicant answered: "He spewed on the passenger seat. Passenger floor so he must have been behind the, like couldn't spew like obviously with the driver's thing there so he spewed everywhere all over the passenger seat."
The account was repeated with extra details at Q1157 - Q1201.
On 14 March 2012, the day after Mr Doyle's death, his first cousin, Jayarna Britt, got in touch with the applicant via Facebook. After an exchange of messages, the applicant sent a telephone number which Ms Britt rang. She told the applicant, "[w]e just wanted to know what happened to him [Luke]." [39] The conversation continued: "I asked her what had happened that day. She said they'd had a - a good day. They'd been yabbying. They'd got some Xanax tablets. And Luke took three, she took one. They went to the motel where Luke Collins was staying. They got some alcohol from there, then went to Taylor Road. I don't remember the man's first name, but I remember his surname - Apps. … So she said when they were there, they went around the corner and got, is it, OxyContin? … And they went back around to Taylor Road. And she said - and they had them. And I asked her how they had them. … She said, 'We had them intravenously.' ... And I asked her where the needle was on Luke - where Luke put the needle, and she said, 'In his hand.' She's then said that Luke - Luke started to vomit and he said he didn't feel well, 'Take me home.' And then she said they took him to the ute and they dropped him on the stairs on the way down. And then she took him out to her house. She opened the door. She did - she said he was in and out of consciousness on the way and she opened the door and did his vitals. … she used "vitals", which was the other thing that stuck out to me. Because no normal - no random person uses the - that terminology. … But it stuck out to me - she - she opened the door when she pulled up and she did his vitals and then went inside, turned the front [light] on, put her phone on the charger and went to bed. … She said the next thing she remembered after she put her phone on the charger was her mum yelling out, 'Tracy, what the fuck's happened? Luke's dead out the front,' or, 'Dead on the lawn'."
There was no challenge to this account in cross-examination.
In May 2013, just over a year after the incident, the applicant delivered a USB stick to Young Police Station. It contained a letter attaching a statement. The typed statement purported to be a record of a conversation between the applicant and Matthew Hennock, in the course of which Mr Hennock said he had murdered Luke Doyle, because Mr Doyle had spoken to the police in relation to criminal activity, naming Mr Hennock as an offender.
The document, recording statements purportedly made by Mr Hennock admitting to the applicant that he had killed the deceased, was supplied to police on 13 May 2013. Ten days later the applicant was in gaol, and remained in gaol until 21 December 2013. During that period, she sent affectionate letters to Matthew Hennock who was also in prison. There was a letter in evidence from Hennock to the applicant.
The tone of the letters suggests they are between good friends. Matthew Hennock's letter states in part: "anyways hows ya mum? Tell her i say hi fuck tracey stay clean once ya out mate ay look wat the shit dus ta owe lifes i think about luke every night it's like i don't even no wat happen that night i miss him ay he was a good person never been able accept hes gone same as Stacey … an a few others i new that have passed as well they would all be still here if we didn't use tha shit."
At the trial the applicant's allegations in her May 2013 document were put to Mr Hennock in cross-examination and obtained crisp denials of the kind, [40] "A. Never happened. None of it. Q. Nothing like that? A. None of it."
Returning to the applicant's accounts, on 14 October 2014 the applicant was rung by Detectives Butcher and Morton, having receiving information that the applicant had further information to give them with respect to the death of Luke Doyle. The substance of the allegation was that Hennock had put three crushed up Xanax in Mr Doyle's drink, describing him as "a dog." He had then assaulted the applicant in the bathroom. She tried to ring triple-0 but her phone "went flat." She said that she took two Xanax herself; the conversation continued: "I was affected pretty bad just on two so I can imagine what three Xanax did to Luke. When I woke, Luke was already in the ute. Yes, I did drive. I drove him home, I tried to revive him. I shook him and said, 'Luke, Luke', then mum came home."
Apart from the admission that she had driven home (the first time she had told the police that fact), the claims that Mr Hennock had killed Mr Doyle by placing three Xanax in a drink (there was no reference to OxyContin) and that Hennock had assaulted her, reflected information contained in the May 2013 document.
On 12 November 2014 Detective Morton contacted the applicant again and asked if she were willing to give a further statement with respect to Luke's death. She declined, saying that she had told them all she knew. [41]
In March 2015 there was an inquest into Mr Doyle's death. Prior to the inquest the applicant had been served with a brief of the evidence. She was arrested on 18 October 2016 and participated in a further recorded interview. She repeated her account that Mr Hennock had sexually assaulted her and that she had seen him place crushed up Xanax tablets into Mr Doyle's drink.
Part of her account included her leaving Mr Apps' house after the assault and running to a nearby acquaintance, Anthony Bennett. She stated that she had told him of Mr Hennock's attempt to kill Mr Doyle and his sexual assault on her. She said Mr Bennett promised that he would ring the police when his brother came home with a mobile phone. The applicant then said that she returned to Mr Apps' house. She said that she took a sip of Mr Doyle's drink: [42] "I took one … sip of it, and I could tell that, it was, uh, there was a, um, oh, how do you explain it? Like, a, uh, a distaste, like, when you drink, like, it was, it had Coke and Wild Turkey in it. I'm not a Wild Turkey drinker, but I, you could also taste, um, some sort of medication in that drink. When I, um, told Luke, I said, 'Don't drink it,' because Matthew had crushed Xanax and put it in it, Matthew then decided that he was going to attack me again. This time, um, in the bathroom for a, a second time." The narrative continued for a further page of the record of interview.
Mr Bennett was called, and denied each element of the allegation relating to his role. He said that she did not come to his house, did not tell him that Matthew Hennock or anybody else was trying to overdose Luke Doyle with the intention of killing him, or that she had been assaulted by Matthew Hennock; he had a mobile phone in March 2012, but his brother did not. The brief cross-examination suggested that it was possible that he could not recall the applicant's visit. He denied that, saying that if any such statements had been made to him he would have called an ambulance and the police.
The October 2016 interview rambled, with long repetitive statements by the applicant. Some clearly responded to statements of other witnesses who had been called at the inquest. The interview commenced at about 6:00pm and was completed at about 9:00pm.
In the final pages, the officer put to her various statements made in her previous recorded interview. With respect to her description of taking Mr Doyle back to her place and dragging him out of the car she simply said: [43] "No, that's all over the place. Well I've gone into detail today. Like I said, when you can't remember something, you should say, and not, as you go, or you try and talk through it."
The account of going into the house, checking on him and asking him if he was coming inside was read to her. The questioner then said: "Q823 … But you're telling us know that you've performed CPR, and he's basically dead at your house, and then you go in your house at 6.50, and your mum comes home ten minutes later. … Q824 Well, you've said earlier that, you've pulled him out, he's doing, you've done CPR for forty-five minutes. That's a very different version."
The question is followed by a long rambling response which seeks to include events which occurred earlier in the evening. At the end the detective asked the following question: "Q826 Yeah, where are, where are you getting all this information from, Tracy? Because some…. A That's the coroner's report. That's what Mick, that's what Kojak [Hodge] write in his, in his statement."
When it was put to her again that the statement as to her actions were "a very different response to what you gave us today" (Q831) she responded: "I didn't have, at, I had been asleep all day that next day. I didn't have much recollection of it. So when you asked me things then, I shouldn't have guessed. In, I can say in hindsight I shouldn't have guessed. I couldn't, I couldn't put, like, I couldn't remember exactly what happened. So I shouldn't have put words in there, that don't make any sense at the time."
There were further denials and explanations, but none rose to the level of plausibility.

(d) other witnesses

The sentiment in relation to the deceased expressed in Mr Hennock's letter from prison set out above was one of deep regret. It was consistent with his conduct on the evening, including the phone calls from Mr Hodges' house; Mr Coyle's description of him as "frantic"; the visit to Young Hospital and later evidence given by friends. Luke Collins, a friend of Luke Doyle, gave evidence that he had a call on the morning of Tuesday 13 March from the applicant on her mother's phone: he recounted the conversation as follows: [44] "A. She said, 'We lost Lukey.' … I said, 'What do you mean you lost him? Where is he?' … She said, 'Yeah, he's' - 'No, like, we lost him, I found him out the front this morning.' … 'He's' - 'He's dead,' that's what she said."
Later that day Mr Collins had a conversation with Matthew Hennock, recounted in evidence as follows: [45] "A. He told me that - I asked him what happened and he told me that he can't really remember, he was off his face, and he told me that he'd seen Luke, that something wasn't right, and that he tried to help him, he tried to slap him across the face and wake - trying to wake him up to help him, but - yeah, then he told me that they were going to try and put him in the ute and drive him to the hospital. Q. Did he tell you whether he was able to wake Luke up? A. No, he said - he said that he couldn't. Q. What did he tell you about trying to take him to hospital? A. He told me that he was trying to put him into the ute but no-one would help him get him into the ute. Q. Do you remember anything else about what he told you? A. And - and that he'd seen someone across the road, by the name of Trent, and he was - yelled out to him to give him a hand, trying to help him put him in the ute. Q. Did he tell you that Trent helped him? A. Yes. … Q. Did Matthew Hennock say whether or not there was anybody else there when he was trying to - apart from Trent, trying to get Luke into the car? A. I think Tracy was there. Q. Do you remember what Matthew said that makes you think that Tracy was there? A. Because Tracy was going to drive him to the hospital. Q. Is that what Matthew said or is that what you've assumed? A. I'm pretty sure that's what Matthew said. … I think he said that he was going to drive to the hospital but Tracy wouldn't let him, and then he went inside to get his stuff or something and Tracy drove off."
In a statement dated 19 March 2012 Shannon Smith, a friend of Hennock, set out a conversation he had had with Mr Hennock on or shortly after the day of Luke Doyle's death. He set out in some detail the conversation, containing Mr Hennock's account, consistently with the evidence Mr Hennock had given, the substantive parts being as follows: [46] "We were in the kitchen. … I saw that Luke was slumped on the lounge, leaning to the left over the armrest. I slapped him in the face and said, 'Luke.' I slapped him a few times, getting harder with each one. He just mumbled once or twice. I saw that he had greeny, yellowy liquid coming out the side of his mouth. I started panicking because I knew something wasn't right and that he needed hospital. I yelled at the others to help but they didn't help me. I started dragging him out of the house and down the steps towards the ute. I felt like he weighed 200 kilos. I dropped him near the bottom of the stairs and he hit his head. I can't remember whether I ran across the road for help or whether someone walking past came and helped me, but a fellow came and helped me get him into the ute. We put him into the passenger side. When we put him in, Luke slumped over towards the gear stick. The other bloke said, 'He doesn't look too good, he might be dead.' I went inside the house to get my phone, bumbag and Luke's jumper. I was looking for the keys because I was going to drive him to hospital. As I came back down the stairs I noticed that Tracy had gone in the ute and taken Luke. I went back inside and then started walking to the hospital. … … Matthew said 'I was panicking and trying to get him to the hospital. I thought I could get him there quicker than the ambulance.' … Q. Then you say, at this point, 'Matthew Hennock started to break down and cry. I gave him a hug and tried to comfort him.' Do you remember saying that? A. Yeah. He was - he was distraught, yeah."
There was no significant cross-examination of Mr Smith.

Assessment of evidence

Matters of credibility and reliability are central to the resolution of this matter. There can be little doubt that persons in need of benzodiazepines and opioid drugs are often desperate and may become practiced at dishonesty and deception. Even when a person gives evidence in court and is cross-examined, an assessment of whether and when the person is lying or confabulating may be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental structural principle of our judicial system that the judge hearing oral evidence is in a better position to assess such matters than an appeal court reviewing the evidence on the papers.
In the present case, where the applicant did not give evidence, but there were numerous records of statements she had made out of court, some recounted in testimony of friends to whom she spoke, not challenged in cross-examination, others being recorded by police officers, where the accuracy of the record was not in question, this Court should be in almost as good a position as the trial judge to assess the reliability of that material. On the other hand, her out of court statements cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the evidence; accordingly, weight must be given to the assessment of the trial judge who was able to consider the material in the context of the evidence of other witnesses and the context of the trial generally.
Taken at face value, the applicant's largely contemporaneous statements demonstrated not merely that she believed Mr Doyle was alive when she arrived home, but that she checked his breathing and pulse, both of which were present at that time.
However, even the contemporaneous statements by the applicant cannot be taken entirely at face value. Thus, she told police that Mr Doyle was the driver; given his comatose state at the time he was placed in the vehicle, it is clear that he cannot have driven anywhere that evening. The applicant later told police that she had lied because she was a disqualified driver. The explanation was probably true; nevertheless, it is most improbable that she would have made such a statement had she believed that Mr Doyle was dead. Indeed, the account that he drove her home was inherently implausible. If he had just driven home, it is difficult to understand why she would have needed to drag him out of the vehicle and wake him up, and why she would have checked to see that he was still breathing and checked his pulse. One element of fabrication may cast doubt on other parts of the account, but there may be other reasons to think that the other parts were truthful. That she genuinely believed he was alive at that point is confirmed by the triple-0 call in which her mother is heard talking to her and trying to convince her that Mr Doyle was indeed dead and not merely "inebriated". That aspect of the evidence was confirmed by the applicant in her statement to police on the evening of 13 March 2012. [47]
There are two pieces of evidence which might contradict the applicant's belief as to Mr Doyle's state when she took him home on the evening of 13 March 2012. The first was the allegation, delivered to police on 13 May 2013, and reiterated in her recorded interview of 18 October 2016 that Mr Hennock had been responsible for Mr Doyle's death. The statements were not consistent. In the earlier statement, she said that Mr Hennock had confessed to her that he had killed Mr Doyle and that he had dragged him into the bedroom. In the interview of 18 October 2016, she said that she witnessed Mr Hennock spiking Mr Doyle's drink by crushing up three Xanax and saying "I'm putting these in Luke's drink." [48] The latter account, however, was patently false on a number of bases.
First, the pharmacological evidence was inconsistent with Mr Doyle having consumed three Xanax that evening. It was possible that he had done so, but had vomited part of the drug; however, Mr Hennock's alleged intention to kill him was then unsuccessful; importantly, it provided no basis for thinking that Mr Doyle was deceased by the time he was placed in the applicant's vehicle.
Secondly, she alleged going to Mr Bennett's house that evening to arrange for him to call the police. That was categorically denied by Mr Bennett whose evidence in that respect was hardly challenged.
Thirdly, if there were an inference that Mr Doyle was deceased when he was placed in the applicant's vehicle, it was necessary to explain the uncontradicted fact that vomit was found in numerous places on the passenger side of the vehicle. That could only have been possible if Mr Doyle had been left in the vehicle for a significant period before being driven by the applicant to her home. In fact, Mr Lovegrove gave evidence that, after helping place Mr Doyle in the vehicle, he went home and that the vehicle drove away an hour later. However, as has been noted, there were sound reasons for rejecting that evidence. The alternative explanation for the presence of the vomit in the utility was that given by the applicant herself, namely that he was vomiting whilst they were both in the vehicle.
Fourthly, when, in the course of the interview on 18 October 2016, the detective read to the applicant her account of the events given in her earlier recorded interview, her explanations for the inconsistencies were inadequate and unconvincing. The only possible explanation for her earlier statements was that Mr Doyle was dead, but she did not know he was dead. That explanation would not have accounted for her repeated statements that she had checked his pulse and that he was breathing when she arrived at her home; but it was possible that those statements were lies. However, on the assumption that she had driven home, and was unable to get out of the vehicle on the driver's side, she could not have got out of the vehicle without either clambering over the bulk of Mr Doyle, or by trying to manoeuvre him in front of her out of the vehicle. On any view, the vomit in the vehicle was consistent with him having vomited after they left Mr Apps' house, consistently with her original accounts.
Whatever the applicant's state of inebriation or drug-induced lethargy on the evening when she was driving home, she was nevertheless able to drive home, a distance of some 6 kilometres, get out of the vehicle, go into the house, place her phone on the recharger, get something to eat or drink and go to bed. The possibility that she did all those things with the body of a deceased man in the car without realising that he was deceased is, in my view, so remote a possibility as to not give rise to a reasonable doubt. In short, and as she clearly believed at the time, the finding of the trial judge that, beyond reasonable doubt, Mr Doyle was alive when they left Mr Apps' house and when they arrived at her home, was correct.
That material need not, however, be viewed in isolation. The evidence of Mr Hennock, who sought to move Mr Doyle from the house into the applicant's utility, was powerful evidence that Mr Doyle was alive when placed in the utility. No doubt his evidence was also subject to the problems of credibility and unreliability as a young man subject to a form of opioid addiction. However, his account of what he did in the early hours of 13 March 2012 obtained significant support from the objective evidence of the telephone calls, the CCTV footage and the statements of those he visited and spoke to by telephone. Mr Hennock gave evidence and was cross-examined at some length. The transcript of his cross-examination reveals little basis for doubting his evidence, unless his denials were in some way implausible. Whether his oral testimony should, despite the supporting evidence, be rejected was very much a question for the trial judge.
It was put to him that he wished to kill Mr Doyle and, to that end, had spiked his drink with Xanax. That cross-examination was based on the applicant's account, which, for reasons explained above, was quite implausible. Mr Hennock's denials were unsurprising and plausible.
The trial judge made the following findings: "[251] Matthew Hennock, Craig Apps and Trent Lovegrove all give evidence that it was the intention of getting Luke Doyle into the red utility and get him to hospital. There were substantial challenges to the evidence of Matthew Hennock and Craig Apps but there was no challenge that it was their intention to get Luke Doyle to hospital. [252] It is also very clear from the combined effect of the evidence of Luke Collins, Matthew Hennock, Craig Apps and the material from the record of interview of the late Corey Power that it was this accused who was the one who was leading the search for oxycodone on the days before 12 March 2012 and on that day. As the Crown submitted it was on her turf and she was pursuing her contacts. Matthew Hennock and Luke Doyle were followers. The accused was well aware that Apps was able to obtain oxycodone."
The judge accepted that there was a conflict between the evidence of Mr Apps and Mr Hennock as to where the applicant was at the time Mr Doyle was placed in the vehicle. He took careful account of evidence that there may have been antipathy between Mr Hennock and the applicant. In particular, he had regard to a suggestion that Hennock and Doyle had taken the applicant's utility to her home in the course of the day and had stolen a chainsaw, fishing rods and a digital camera, which Mr Apps was said to have used to swap for OxyContin pills. The judge ultimately rejected the submission that there was such antipathy; in the course of considering Matthew Hennock's evidence he stated: "[115] Mr Lowe successfully sought to cross-examine Matthew Hennock on his criminal history. He has matters of dishonesty recorded against him, including the break, enter and steal. I have taken that cross-examination and those matters on his record into account in coming to the conclusions that I have about the acceptance of Hennock's evidence."
More directly relevant was the evidence as to the ingestion of oxycodone on the evening of 12 March. That was dealt with in the following terms: "[119] Matthew Hennock also made a statement on 13 March 2012, i.e. the day that Luke Doyle died. In the course of re-examination at p 397 commencing line 39 he read an extract from that statement, namely: 'I remember the plan of why we, why we attended.' This says why we were but 'why we attended Craig Apps' house was to swap the bottles of alcohol for oxycontin pills. I don't remember how or who swapped the bottles for pills but we ended up having three oxycontin pills, one each, one each for myself, Tracey and Luke. I remember we were in the kitchen and we each had a shot of the oxycontin pill. What I mean by this is we, each miled (sic, but read mulled) up a complete oxy tablet and injected it. I believe the oxy tablets were 80s which this means each tablet was 80 milligrams in strength.' [120] As the learned Crown Prosecutor correctly submitted … Matthew Hennock was not challenged on that part of his evidence. [121] I have often observed it is always more difficult to give reasons as to why the evidence of a particular witness should be accepted rather than rejected. I had ample opportunity to observe Matthew Hennock in the witness box over several days. He remained calm despite sustained cross-examination. He never attempted to prevaricate or 'fudge' with his evidence. He admitted he was or at least had been a junkie. In this regard I note in particular the answers at p 364 line 15 and continuing. He did not seek to diminish his role in the break and enter offence at Braybrook's Pharmacy. At the end of the evidence of Matthew Hennock I was left very much with the impression that he had done his best to tell the truth of what he recalled of the events surrounding the death of Luke Doyle. He answered on occasions that he could not remember. Given the affectation by substances and the period of time those responses were understandable."
Both Mr Hennock and Mr Apps were involved in moving Mr Doyle to the utility. Their accounts were not entirely consistent; each recalled that he took the major role in moving Mr Doyle. Each however explained that it was seeing Mr Doyle either on the ground or slumped over in the lounge (Mr Apps and Mr Hennock respectively) which led them to realise he was in a bad way. Mr Hennock said that "I don't really remember anything till I walked out in the lounge room" and "I'd sort of snapped out of everything when I walked in the lounge room." [49] Mr Apps did not see Mr Doyle "hit the ground", but he said that he heard it. Matthew Hennock's evidence was that the applicant was with them when they said that Mr Doyle needed to be taken to the hospital. Mr Apps gave evidence to similar effect, although he placed the applicant in the house at the time that was said, whereas Mr Hennock placed her near the car. Because both Mr Apps and Mr Hennock formed the view when Mr Doyle was in the house that he should go to hospital and placed him in the car for that purpose, it is plausible that such statements were made both in the house and outside, as they recounted, and that the applicant was present on both occasions. As the judge noted: "[165] On this aspect there is very real force in the Crown's submission that it is a 'double edged sword' for the accused. If she was outside she must have heard Matthew Hennock say something about the need to get Luke Doyle to the hospital and if she was inside she must have heard Craig Apps say something about the need to get help. Given the evidence of Matthew Hennock, Craig Apps and Trent Lovegrove it would have been blatantly obvious to anyone that Luke Doyle was in need of urgent medical assistance."
It is apparent from the evidence of Mr Apps, Mr Hennock and the applicant (in her earlier accounts of events) that each believed Mr Doyle was alive when he was placed in the utility. Mr Apps said that he had a pulse; Mr Hennock said that he was slurring his words; the applicant said he had a pulse and was breathing when they arrived at her home.
As already noted, there were reasons to believe the applicant's early accounts; there was objective evidence, namely that Mr Doyle had vomited in the utility, which supported the conclusion that he was alive when they left the house, although probably unconscious, and was alive a few minutes later when they had covered the 6 kilometres to the applicant's home. I entertain no doubt that the judge was correct to find beyond reasonable doubt that: 1. Luke Doyle was alive when placed in the applicant's utility and when she drove off, and 2. the applicant believed that he was alive throughout the time that they were both in the vehicle together.
Thus both the first and second factual issues were established beyond reasonable doubt: he was alive and she believed he was alive.
Finally, it is appropriate to refer to the elements of the offence identified by the applicant in written submissions as not established beyond reasonable doubt, namely that: [50] 1. in the circumstances the appellant owed the deceased a duty of care; 2. the appellant voluntarily assumed the care of the deceased; 3. the appellant secluded the deceased, preventing others from rendering assistance; 4. the appellant was grossly negligent in not seeking medical assistance for him; and 5. the omission of the appellant significantly or substantially caused or accelerated the death of the deceased.
Once it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant knew that Mr Doyle had been placed in her vehicle in a virtually comatose state in circumstances where he had, to her knowledge, taken both Xanax and OxyContin, and that the two friends who were also present, Mr Apps and Mr Hennock, put him in the vehicle so that he could be taken to hospital, it follows that her deliberate act of taking him to her home and leaving him without any attention let alone medical attention, was grossly negligent and significantly hastened his death. (There was medical evidence that if taken to hospital, there was a reasonable prospect of reviving him. [51] ) It necessarily followed that she owed the deceased a duty of care because she voluntarily assumed his care whilst he was helpless, and by removing him from the possibility of others providing help, "secluded" him.
For the reasons set out above, I believe the judge was correct to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant well understood the condition Mr Doyle was in when placed in the front passenger seat of her vehicle and why he was placed there.
It follows that, although it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal, to consider the judge's assessment of the evidence, the appeal must be dismissed.

Orders

In my view the Court should make the following orders: 1. Grant the applicant leave to appeal from her conviction in the District Court on the charge of unlawfully killing Luke Doyle contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 2. Dismiss the appeal.
PRICE J: For the reasons comprehensively provided by Basten JA and upon my own analysis of the evidence, I have concluded that the judge correctly found that the applicant was guilty of the unlawful killing of Luke Doyle pursuant to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act and ought not have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of her guilt. I agree that leave to appeal be granted, but the appeal be dismissed.
WRIGHT J: I have had the advantage of reading Basten JA's judgment in draft and respectfully agree with his Honour's analysis and reasons as well as the orders proposed.
I have also formed my own independent view that it was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the applicant and that this was not a case in which the trial judge must have entertained a doubt about her guilt. In reaching these conclusions, I have had regard to the evidence as a whole and to the intermediate findings of the trial judge about which no complaint was made in this appeal: Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 at [83] (Gageler J); Bell v R [2017] NSWCCA 207 at [19] - [27] (Bathurst CJ, McCallum and N Adams JJ).
I only wish to make an additional comment on the applicant's contention that it could not, on the medical evidence, be excluded as a reasonable possibility that the deceased died shortly after taking the oxycodone. This was said to be based on the evidence of Prof Duflou, a consulting forensic pathologist. It was then submitted that, if this was when the deceased died, he would have been dead at or shortly after the time when he was put into the utility and there would have been no omission by the applicant that significantly or substantially caused or accelerated his death.
The evidence relied upon included what Prof Duflou wrote in his 27 August 2018 report (Ex 10) at par 32: "There is certainly no identifiable data which can be extracted from the autopsy report or various toxicology reports which gives an independently verifiable time of death. The autopsy features are entirely consistent with death having taken place some short time after the various drugs were taken at about 22:30 hours, and they may similarly be entirely consistent with their having taken place sometime after the deceased's pulse was reportedly last felt by [the applicant]."
In addition, the applicant's submissions referred to Prof Duflou's evidence during examination in chief. This evidence included, at Tcpt, 7 November 2018, p 812 (29-39): "… Together with drug and alcohol colleagues of mine, we've looked at this and we - we know that there appears to be two quite different groups of people - well, to quite different scenarios of people dying from opioid overdose: there is the person who dies very rapidly with the so-called 'needle still in the arm'; and then there's the person who nods off, appears to fall asleep, is generally heard to be snoring very loudly, often during the night, and over many hours study developed severe respiratory depression, which may also be complicated by aspiration or may not, and then eventually dies some considerable hours after death - sorry, after taking the drug. It is not clear to me from looking at the autopsy results here what type of case this is. Now I don't think I can tell you."
At par 31 of Ex 10, however, the professor acknowledged that "if there was indeed a pulse this would be an absolute indication the deceased was alive at that time".
The evidence as a whole and in particular the evidence concerning the state of the deceased when he was taken to the utility and the applicant's taking his pulse and checking his "vitals", including, without attempting to be exhaustive, the evidence of: 1. Mr Hennock; 2. Mr Apps; 3. Mr Lovegrove; 4. Ms Heather Dowling (including her 000 call after finding the deceased); 5. Ms Britt; and 6. the applicant in her statement to Constable Dreverman and her answers to questions during the electronically recorded interviews, provided a more than adequate foundation for concluding that the hypothesis that the deceased died shortly after taking the oxycodone was not reasonably open on the evidence.

Endnotes

(2012) 246 CLR 334; [2012] HCA 35 (citations omitted).
(1988) 14 NSWLR 226, at 244A, quoting Jones v United States of America 308 F 2d 307, 310 (DC Cir, 1962)
Burns at [22] (French CJ); [101] (Gummow Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
Appellant's written submissions, 26 May 2020, par 68(vi), emphasis added.
[1977] VR 430 at 445.
Written submissions, 26 May 2020, par 49.
Burns at [97] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).
Written submissions, 26 May 2020, pars 56-57.
Tcpt, p 347(47).
Tcpt, 24/10/18, p 382(45).
Tcpt, pp 709-710.
Tcpt, p 711(27).
Tcpt, p 711(35).
Tcpt, p 650(13).
Tcpt, p 653(8).
Tcpt, p 652(5)-(25).
Tcpt, 668(30).
Tcpt, p 821(20).
Tcpt, pp 653(10)-(15); 654(5).
Tcpt, p 301(37).
Tcpt, pp 302-303.
Tcpt, p 305(12).
Tcpt, p 306(13).
Tcpt, p 306(20).
Tcpt, p 307(12).
Tcpt, p 307(50).
Tcpt, p 416(40).
Tcpt, p 416(49).
Tcpt, p 417(45).
Tcpt, p 497(40).
Tcpt, pp 502-503.
Tcpt, p 503(5)-(10).
Tcpt, p 503(45).
Tcpt, p 504(15).
Tcpt, p 505(15)-(23).
Tcpt, p 523(30)-(45).
ERISP interview, 13 March 2012, answer to Q599.
Q603, answer.
Tcpt, p 763(30).
Tcpt, p 318(5).
Tcpt, p 87.
ERISP, 18 October 2016, Q67, answer.
ERISP, Q818, Q819.
Tcpt, p 176(30).
Tcpt, p 177(45).
Tcpt, pp 642-643.
See [47] above.
Answer to Q63.
Tcpt, pp 300(40) and 301(1).
Appellant's written submissions 26 May 2020, par 68.
Tcpt, 05/11/18, 683(5), 688(35)-(40) (Dr Farrar); 779(15) (Dr Robertson).

Amendments 06 November 2020 - Orders Coversheet and [96] - replacing Crimes Act 1990 with Crimes Act 1900. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 06 November 2020

Criminal Appeals Act 1912(NSW)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (12 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (8)

Cited By (1)