QS
Brownlow Medallist
What does everyone think of this case? For those not in the know, a prominent perth Barrister Lloyd Rayney was charged with the murder of his wife Corryn Rayney which occurred in 2007.
The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which ultimately did not satisfy the standard of proof, in the eyes of Justice Brian Martin (judge alone trial due to media exposure potentially skewing a jury verdict), and he was subsequently acquitted of the charge. Evidence was quite shaky when put to the court in order to substantiate a finding of guilt.
Prosecution, at the eleventh hour, lodged an application to appeal the decision.
The application cites the following grounds of appeal:
"The trial judge erred in law in failing to apply the principles enunciated in R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 in relation to the assessment of circumstantial evidence in that his Honour assessed the circumstances in a piecemeal and sequential manner and failed to consider the circumstances as a whole.
"The trial judge erred in law in finding that the fact that the deceased was attacked at, or in the near vicinity of her house, did not alone establish guilt, for the nature of the circumstantial case was that no fact alone established guilt.
"The trial judge erred in law in concluding that the finding of the respondent’s dinner place card near the burial site did not prove guilt for the significance of that fact was not assessed together
with the other circumstances, in particular, it was not assessed together with the accepted fact that
the deceased had been attacked at or near her home."
Question is, is this a face save exercise by the prosecution, or based on the facts presented and the above grounds of appeal do they stand nil chance of having the original decision set aside by a higher court? What do you think?
Personally I think the former, after reading the case in full it would be hard to reason, based on the facts, that they could satisfy the standard of proof.
The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which ultimately did not satisfy the standard of proof, in the eyes of Justice Brian Martin (judge alone trial due to media exposure potentially skewing a jury verdict), and he was subsequently acquitted of the charge. Evidence was quite shaky when put to the court in order to substantiate a finding of guilt.
Prosecution, at the eleventh hour, lodged an application to appeal the decision.
The application cites the following grounds of appeal:
"The trial judge erred in law in failing to apply the principles enunciated in R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 in relation to the assessment of circumstantial evidence in that his Honour assessed the circumstances in a piecemeal and sequential manner and failed to consider the circumstances as a whole.
"The trial judge erred in law in finding that the fact that the deceased was attacked at, or in the near vicinity of her house, did not alone establish guilt, for the nature of the circumstantial case was that no fact alone established guilt.
"The trial judge erred in law in concluding that the finding of the respondent’s dinner place card near the burial site did not prove guilt for the significance of that fact was not assessed together
with the other circumstances, in particular, it was not assessed together with the accepted fact that
the deceased had been attacked at or near her home."
Question is, is this a face save exercise by the prosecution, or based on the facts presented and the above grounds of appeal do they stand nil chance of having the original decision set aside by a higher court? What do you think?
Personally I think the former, after reading the case in full it would be hard to reason, based on the facts, that they could satisfy the standard of proof.
