Rebecca Massey appealing (strictly in a legal sense)

johnboy 7 May 2011 28

The Canberra Times has the news that convicted murderer Rebecca Massey is chancing her arm on the ACT’s appeal-a-go-round, safely removing the case from a know-nothing jury of her peers and returning it to the forgiving arms of the judiciary.

Massey’s legal team argues the judge who presided over the trial, Justice Malcolm Gray, failed to direct the jury properly on crucial points of law.

According to appeal papers, Justice Gray did not properly direct the jury about the evidence upon which Massey relied in her self-defence claim.

He is said to have failed to give the jury adequate instructions on the matter of self-defence and failed to link his instructions to the evidence on the topic.

It is argued that the errors deprived Massey of a fair chance of acquittal and the jury’s verdict is ”unsafe and unsatisfactory” as a result.

Massey’s lawyers seek to have her murder conviction quashed, allowing the Ngunnawal woman to walk free, or have the case remitted to the Supreme Court again for a re-trial.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Rebecca Massey appealing (strictly in a legal sense)
Filter
Order
Lookout Smithers Lookout Smithers 3:58 am 26 May 11

cleo said :

You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge.

That doesn’t even make sense. What are trying to say? That the appeal is evidence that she doesn’t feel bad about killing someone? It really is rare. Who says anyone wants to acknowledge? Or that its even their own views? Pay more attention. Its an appeal in court. One which she is entitled to lodge. It invariably is the case with murders.

cleo cleo 11:49 pm 25 May 11

You can’t change what you don’t acknowledge.

Chop71 Chop71 3:24 pm 09 May 11

Calamity said :

Fantastic title. Just fantastic.

I accidently cought a bus (that she was on) one day and luckily enough I could hear her foul mouth before I saw her face. I found both her language and looks far from appealing.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 2:52 pm 09 May 11

Aj_1987 said :

Although the judge him self said after the trial we may discus it with whom ever we want…

You can discuss details made public, things deemed admissable as evidence, and details of preceedings which occurred in open court (just like the rest of us) but identifying yourself or anyone else who was part of the jury which declared Rebecca Massey guilty of murder, effectively says [Name Unknown] residing at [Address Unkown], was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts that Rebecca Massey stabbed someone in a public space in front of witnesses, and was responsible for their death.

Hypothetical:
Perhaps she appeals successfully so is free to get back to the important things in life like carrying a knife into a shopping centre “for protection”, or the appeal fails but a similarly stable and just as law-abiding acquaintance of hers wanted to ‘settle a score’…
Perhaps revealing identities may not be the wisest of moves?

Calamity Calamity 2:39 pm 09 May 11

Fantastic title. Just fantastic.

Gerry-Built Gerry-Built 12:28 pm 09 May 11

Skidbladnir said :

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury…

Then none of us want to know who you are, anything about you, or what you have to say on the matter of Rebecca Massey’s trial.
You would have been instructed about this.

It seems to me, that everything said and done in open court is OK… just not jury the closed deliberation (that 4 hours that it took the jury to convict Massey)… surely any evidence that led to the jury convicting Massey would have been presented, and discussed, in open court, and therefore open for “publication”…

Aj_1987 Aj_1987 12:00 pm 09 May 11

Chop71 said :

p1 said :

Skidbladnir said :

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury…

Then none of us want to know who you are, anything about you, or what you have to say on the matter of Rebecca Massey’s trial.
You would have been instructed about this….

Well I will post no more about this subject… Although the judge him self said after the trial we may discus it with whom ever we want… We can not discus our deliberations however. Clearly you have never served as a jury member.

Unless Aj_1987 is his/he real name, he/she might not have actually breached that list of reg’s you mention. To the letter at least, I think the vibe….

yet……..

Chop71 Chop71 11:45 am 09 May 11

p1 said :

Skidbladnir said :

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury…

Then none of us want to know who you are, anything about you, or what you have to say on the matter of Rebecca Massey’s trial.
You would have been instructed about this….

Unless Aj_1987 is his/he real name, he/she might not have actually breached that list of reg’s you mention. To the letter at least, I think the vibe….

yet……..

p1 p1 11:36 am 09 May 11

Skidbladnir said :

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury…

Then none of us want to know who you are, anything about you, or what you have to say on the matter of Rebecca Massey’s trial.
You would have been instructed about this….

Unless Aj_1987 is his/he real name, he/she might not have actually breached that list of reg’s you mention. To the letter at least, I think the vibe….

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 11:11 am 09 May 11

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury…

Then none of us want to know who you are, anything about you, or what you have to say on the matter of Rebecca Massey’s trial.
You would have been instructed about this.

Quickly re-familiarise yourself with the Juries Act 1967, Section 42C: “Confidentiality of jury deliberations”.

(2) A person must not disclose protected information if the person is aware that, in consequence of the disclosure, the information will, or is likely to, be published.
(3) A person must not solicit or obtain protected information with the intention of publishing or facilitating the publication of that information.
(4) A person must not publish protected information.

For any of the above: penalties up to $5500 fine, imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
They are all seperate offences, and can be charged simultaneously.

Protected information means—
(a) particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced and votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations, other than anything said or done in open court; or
(b) information that identifies, or is likely to identify, a person as, or as having been, a juror in particular proceedings.

Publish, in relation to protected information, means –
Communicate or disseminate the information in such a way or to such an extent that it is available to, or likely to come to the notice of, the public or a section of the public.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 11:04 am 09 May 11

dvaey said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

PJCanberra said :

My god, if you stab someone and kill them it’s MURDER!!

*sigh* No, not necessarily – read up on the law before posting this tripe.

Apparently a jury of her peers who has had the law read to them by a judge and the evidence presented by both sides agree.

yes, in this case. The blanket statement ‘if you stab someone and kill them it’s MURDER!!’ is what I have an issue with.

dvaey dvaey 10:53 am 09 May 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

PJCanberra said :

My god, if you stab someone and kill them it’s MURDER!!

*sigh* No, not necessarily – read up on the law before posting this tripe.

Apparently a jury of her peers who has had the law read to them by a judge and the evidence presented by both sides agree.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 10:09 am 09 May 11

PJCanberra said :

My god, if you stab someone and kill them it’s MURDER!!
She should go to jail. What is it with appeals and people getting off all the time in Canberra??

*sigh* No, not necessarily – read up on the law before posting this tripe.

EvanJames EvanJames 9:49 am 09 May 11

Aj_1987 said :

She is as guilty as sin.

Who goes to the shops with a knife in their pocket? For any reason? It’s appalling that people like this are allowed to waste public money. There is no reasonable doubt in this case, and having people like this wandering around in society is not something I’m keen on.

Chop71 Chop71 9:47 am 09 May 11

Aj_1987 said :

I was on the jury and everything was explained to us. They even called us back out to clear some stuff up that we assume the defense had issues with! This makes my blood boil as I was part of this trial for over a month! She is as guilty as sin.

Please don’t say anything else in a public forum. If you have something to say, offer it to the police or the appeals judge.

vg vg 11:05 pm 08 May 11

“I was on the jury and everything was explained to us. They even called us back out to clear some stuff up that we assume the defense had issues with! This makes my blood boil as I was part of this trial for over a month! She is as guilty as sin.”

If you were on the jury you were instructed not to do things like this

Gerry-Built Gerry-Built 7:16 pm 08 May 11

Spideydog said :

There is no rehab for someone that has no remorse for what they had done.

Yeah I tend to agree – hence “opportunity”…

Spideydog Spideydog 5:05 pm 08 May 11

Gerry-Built said :

I get the distinct impression, that in the lead up to the trial, she failed every drug test, broke her bail conditions and lied on several occasions; there is no remorse for her crimes, nor the murder (is it still “alleged” if she has been found guilty, but is appealing the conviction?) itself. Hope the appeal is dismissed, but held against her during sentencing… If she was unable to change her ways whilst preparing to defend herself – she clearly has no intention of changing her ways in the long term… She is her own worst enemy – and until she faces that, things are not going to change for her, nor anyone around her… Some good time away might help change her perspective – she needs the opportunity for rehabilitation from those who are encouraging her antisocial and illegal acts, and those around her need a break from her encouragement of the same…

There is no rehab for someone that has no remorse for what they had done.

Aj_1987 Aj_1987 12:44 pm 08 May 11

I was on the jury and everything was explained to us. They even called us back out to clear some stuff up that we assume the defense had issues with! This makes my blood boil as I was part of this trial for over a month! She is as guilty as sin.

BerraBoy68 BerraBoy68 11:04 am 08 May 11

Lookout Smithers said :

…the severity of the charge and what it means for the lawyer should they win the case. The outcome of a charge like that is life changing for client and counsel.

Pretty life changing for the dead victim and her family too, I’d have thought.

Hope she gets 20+ years.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site