Category Archives: s. 137

R v Djenadija [2015] ACTSC 29 (26 February 2015)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2015/29.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences against children – indecent assault on a person under the age of 16 years
EVIDENCE – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – tendency evidence – whether the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) applies to an application to lead tendency evidence in relation to offences allegedly committed prior to the commencement of that Act

R v Lambaditis [2015] NSWSC 182 (9 March 2015)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2015/182.html

EVIDENCE – EXPERT EVIDENCE – MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING – whether the accused proficient in martial arts techniques – whether expert evidence capable of establishing such proficiency – whether the evidence in the Crown case admissible as expert opinion evidence on a state of mind issue on a charge of murder – namely as proof of an intention to cause grievous bodily harm – held that the opinion evidence in question could not be relevant to a fact in issue in the proceedings – the evidence even if admissible should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 Evidence Act 1995

R v A (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 79 (17 February 2015)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2015/79.html

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – where police unsuccessful in serving a subpoena on a witness – where Crown sought to tender passages of the statement of the witness in her absence – no prior notice given to accused until the day on which the application was made – where counsel for the accused had instructions to cross-examine the witness as to credit – where opportunity to cross-examine would be lost – evidence excluded

Hermanus (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2015] VSCA 2 (28 January 2015)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2015/2.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Stay – Fair trial – Trial of alleged sexual offences – Delay – Alleged offending occurred nearly 40 years ago – Child complainant – Original complaint to police lost – Whether irremediable prejudice – Whether forensic disadvantage warning sufficient – No error in refusal of stay – Leave to appeal refused.

DPP v Tuite [2014] VSC 662 (19 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/662.html

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Expert Evidence – DNA evidence – Likelihood ratios – Whether fully-continuous probabilistic statistical methodology for the evaluation of DNA evidence constitutes a new and discrete field of knowledge – Whether admission of DNA evidence would give rise to unfair prejudice to the accused due to its complexity – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 79(1), s 137.

Landsman v R [2014] NSWCCA 328 (19 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/328.html

CRIMINAL LAW – stated case – Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5B – whether stated case raises a question of law

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal in the District Court against conviction in the Local Court by way of rehearing – Fresh evidence – Crimes (Appeal and Review Act) 2001 (NSW), s 18(2) – whether adducing fresh evidence in the “interests of judgment” – post-conviction admission made to Corrective Services Officer during interview to assess applicant’s suitability for intensive correction order – interview conducted pursuant to Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – whether applicant denied common law right of silence

WORDS AND PHRASES – “interests of justice”

Application by Thomas Hudson Wilson pursuant to s 78 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 [2014] NSWSC 1792 (16 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1792.html

CRIMINAL LAW – application for inquiry into conviction under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) – photo identification evidence – no special facts or special circumstances raised – identification of seized items – no sense of unease or disquiet required raised – application dismissed

Joseph v The Queen [2014] VSCA 343 (18 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/343.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applicant convicted of multiple offences including aggravated burglary whilst co-offender armed with firearm – Whether necessary for trial judge to give anti-propensity warning in relation to weapon of similar description located at co-offender’s home – No exception taken to failure to give warning at trial – No substantial miscarriage of justice – Thompson and Wran v The Queen [1968] HCA 21; (1968) 117 CLR 313 distinguished.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Applicant convicted on basis of joint criminal enterprise – Total effective sentence 14 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 11 years – Co-offender, whose involvement was relevantly indistinguishable, sentenced to 11 years with non-parole period of 7 years 6 months – Co-offender younger and fewer prior convictions – Whether justifiable sense of grievance based upon undue disparity between sentences – Undue disparity between respective non-parole periods – Leave to appeal against sentence granted – Applicant’s non-parole period reduced to 9 years 6 months.

Murrell v The Queen [2014] VSCA 334 (18 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/334.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Aggravated burglary and armed robbery – Possession of firearms and implements said to have been used in crime – Whether evidence of possession of items admissible – Similarity of items to description given by victims – Whether investigators obliged to show items to victims before trial – Whether prosecutor obliged to ask witnesses at trial whether items were similar – Circumstantial evidence rendering it probable that items were used in crime – Whether probative value of evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect – Whether need of direction as to applicant’s participation in incriminating conversation – Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Leave refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Judge’s summing up – Duties of trial judge – Obligation to identify all evidence whether direct or circumstantial relevant to the issues – Jury Directions Act 2013 ss 17, 18

Pasoski v R [2014] NSWCCA 309 (15 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/309.html

CRIMINAL LAW – application for extension of time to give notice of appeal against conviction and application for leave against sentence – where application for extension of time not opposed – where affidavit supporting extension of time unsatisfactory – discretionary power to extend time limit to be exercised having regard to the interests of justice in the case

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – “context” evidence – where evidence admitted of poor relationship between applicant and complainant – where evidence not of prior sexual or other assaults against the complainant – whether trial judge erred in failing to give specific direction as to limited use to which evidence could be put – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 97, 101, 135, 137

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – where jury failed to reach unanimous decision on some charges – where trial judge gave majority verdict direction – where failure to examine juror on oath before giving direction – Jury Act 1977 (NSW), s 55F(2)(b)

CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether fact that sexual assault occurred in home aggravating factor when applicant and complainant resided together at the relevant time – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)(eb)

CRIMINAL LAW – where aggregate sentence to be reassessed – Court to re-exercise discretion to form its own judgment as to appropriate aggregate sentence – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A

Pace (a pseudonym) and Collins (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 317 (5 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/317.html

1 Pursuant to certification of the trial judge under s 293(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’), the applicants seek leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made on 25 November 2014 in which his Honour refused to exclude certain ‘picture identification evidence’.

LB v R [2014] NSWCCA 295 (5 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/295.html

APPEAL – appeal against conviction – applicant convicted of attempted sexual intercourse without consent with a person under the age of 10 years – whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42 – Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 – complainant’s evidence given by video – recordings of interview with police – whether manner of giving evidence undermined the principles of fair trial – whether probative value of the evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – admissibility of evidence – whether probative value of evidence outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – credibility of witness

KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294 (1 December 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/294.html

EVIDENCE – application by Crown to cross-examine unfavourable witnesses – advance ruling – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38 and 192A – witnesses included persons named on indictment but not charged – whether appellable error in grant of leave to cross-examine – whether appellable error in judge inquiring, in presence of jury, whether witness aware of right to object to giving self-incriminating evidence

R v Lin [2014] NSWSC 1752 (27 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1752.html

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – expert evidence – whether opinion as to usual causes of fires in “meth labs” unfairly prejudicial – evidence allowed – hearsay evidence – evidence that gas burner “on” – expert who examined premises overseas – whether “unavailable to give evidence” – no notice given – no evidence of steps taken to secure attendance – unclear whether evidence based on personal observation – unclear whether evidence a conclusion – no evidence of basis of conclusion – danger of unfair prejudice – evidence rejected

Nabole v The Queen [2014] VSCA 297 (21 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/297.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Importing marketable quantity of a border controlled drug (cocaine) – Whether evidence of false statements made to Customs officer during baggage examination should have been excluded pursuant to s 23V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Whether implied admission in making false statements constituted ‘confession or admission’ for the purpose of that section – Whether appellant was being questioned ‘as a suspect’ – Raso v The Queen (1993) 68 A Crim R 495, applied – Whether evidence of false statements should have been excluded pursuant to ss 85, 90 or 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 – Appeal dismissed.

Reid v The Queen [2014] VSCA 295 (21 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/295.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Armed robbery and recklessly causing serious injury – Description of offenders by victim inconsistent with victim’s photo board identification of the applicant – Whether photo board identification ‘recognition’ of offender seen prior to the offence – Whether evidence of photo board identification should have been excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 – Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Leave to appeal against conviction refused.

Hudspeth v Scholastic Cleaning and Consultancy Services Pty Ltd & Ors (Ruling No 8) [2014] VSC 567 (20 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/567.html

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Overarching obligations – Duties of experts to court– Expert Code of Conduct – Duties of legal practitioners to court – Overarching obligation to disclose existence of documents – Overarching obligation not to mislead or deceive – Whether breach of overarching obligations by expert witness and by legal practitioners instructing that expert in preparation of report and giving evidence – Sections 16, 17, 21, 26 and 29 Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Overarching obligations – Duties of legal practitioners to court – Whether breach of overarching obligations by legal practitioners instructing an expert and leading evidence from that expert – Overarching obligation to disclose existence of documents – Overarching obligation not to mislead or deceive – Sections 16, 17, 21, 26 and 29 Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

EXPERT WITNESS – Overarching obligations – Duties of experts to court– Expert Code of Conduct – Whether breach of overarching obligations by expert witness when preparing report giving evidence – Overarching obligation not to mislead or deceive – Sections 16, 17, 21, 26 and 29 Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

SLS v The Queen [2014] VSCA 31 (6 March 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/31.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Application for permanent stay refused – Long delay, but not simply presumptive prejudice – Destruction of evidence – Loss of evidence – Greatly limited ability to adduce alibi evidence – Whether judge erred by confining evidence of complainants on voir dire – Attack upon findings made and inferential reasoning of judge below – Appeal allowed – Decision refusing stay set aside – Matter remitted for re-hearing and determination by another judge.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Ruling by judge that evidence of complainants cross-admissible – Whether reasonable possibility of collusion or contamination – Whether judge wrongly approached matter by treating applicant as carrying burden of proof – Whether judge erred by making findings upon matters of disputed fact – Whether judge failed to address facts inexorably leading to conclusion that reasonable possibility of collusion or contamination could not be excluded – Appeal allowed – Ruling set aside – In lieu, ruling that evidence not cross-admissible – Question whether indictment should be severed remitted for re-hearing and determination by another judge – Questions whether evidence of other witnesses constituted tendency evidence, and, if it was, should nonetheless be excluded, likewise remitted.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Ruling that expert evidence admissible that conduct of a hypothetical man behaving in the same way that the complainants and others alleged that the applicant had behaved (including conduct which constituted the charged acts) was (highly) consistent with ‘grooming’ by sex offenders – Concession by Crown on appeal that evidence inadmissible – Concession rightly made – s 79 Evidence Act 2008 – Whether witness had relevant expertise – Whether evidence had any probative value – Circularity – Whether, in any event, evidence should have been excluded under s 135 Evidence Act – Whether evidence was about a matter upon which expert evidence was receivable – Whether evidence would be tendency evidence admissible under s 97(1) Evidence Act – Whether, if so, evidence should have been excluded under s 101 – Whether unacceptable risk that evidence would trespass into propensity evidence – Whether, if so, evidence should have been excluded under s 135 or s 137 Evidence Act – Whether evidence admissible under s 108C Evidence Act.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory Appeal – Peremptory ruling that counsel for accused should not be permitted to cross-examine complainant on content of confidential communication – No reasons given – Note made by counsellor of statement attributed to complainant – Note contained in confidential communications earlier released for inspection by accused’s legal advisers – Later ruling by judge that counsel for accused not be permitted to cross-examine complainant upon the note at trial – ss 32C and 32D Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 – Whether peremptory refusal complied with statutory obligations imposed upon judge – Whether peremptory refusal and later ruling supportable – Appeal allowed – Ruling set aside – In lieu, ruling that accused have leave to cross-examine complainant on further hearing of stay application and in any later trial.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Ruling that prosecution might adduce evidence of accused’s pleas of guilty, in 2008, to sexual offences committed between 2003-2005 and of agreed summary of circumstances read to Magistrates’ Court in, ‘rebuttal’ if credibility of victims of those offences was challenged in cross-examination – Evidence only admissible if viva voce evidence of witnesses receivable as tendency evidence – Crown statement that evidence of some witnesses would not be relied upon at a trial – Whether any basis revealed for prosecution being permitted to split its case – Consideration of possible juridical bases upon which evidence might be admissible – Appeal allowed – Ruling set aside – In lieu, question whether evidence admissible remitted for re-hearing and determination by another judge.

The Queen v Jacobson (Ruling No 2) [2014] VSC 368 (8 August 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/368.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Two counts of conspiracy to contravene s 1041A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – 33 counts of contravening s 1041A of Corporations Act – Joinder of counts in one indictment – Severance – Admissibility of previous dealings as context evidence – Whether previous dealings admissible as tendency evidence – Cross-admissibility of evidence as context or tendency evidence – Elements of offences.

Gillies v The State of New South Wales (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1598 (13 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1598.html

PROCEDURE – pleadings – notice of motion – ex parte hearing – orders sought under Rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 – alternative orders sought for claim to be struck out and dismissed for want of prosecution – statement of claim not particularised in accordance with Rules – statement of claim struck out – aspects of the claim statute barred – malicious prosecution alleged – elements of malicious prosecution – cause of action untenable – proceedings dismissed – costs

Bray (A Pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 276 (7 November 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/276.html

EVIDENCE – Hearsay rule – Exceptions – Criminal proceedings – Maker of previous representation not available – Deceased complainant – Statement to police – Cross-examined at committal – Whether police statement admissible – Whether committal transcript admissible – Whether accused had ‘reasonable opportunity to cross-examine’ – Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Common law discretion to exclude – Whether judge erred in not excluding evidence as unfair to accused – Haddara v The Queen [2014] VSCA 100 – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 295(3)(a) – Evidence Act 2008 ss 65(2)(b), 65(3), 137.

R v Rice & ors (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1525 (31 October 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1525.html

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – where Crown sought to tender evidence of three telephone conversations immediately before closing its case – where evidence had been available for a considerable period beforehand – where Crown on notice of the relevant issues – evidence not previously disclosed to the accused – where counsel for accused had completed cross-examination of the Crown’s principal witness – whether procedural unfairness is capable of giving rise to unfair prejudice for the purposes of s. 137 of the Evidence Act – probative value outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice arising from a series of circumstances – evidence rejected

The Queen v Jacobson (Ruling No 5) [2014] VSC 554 (15 October 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/554.html

CRIMINAL LAW Evidence Accused charged with conspiracy to take part in share purchases contrary to s 1041A of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Daughter alleged co-conspirator Whether prior knowledge by accused of previous such purchases by daughter relevant Whether such evidence rendered admissible by evidence given by accused Evidence Act 2008 s 137.

Rice v R (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 1400 (14 October 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1400.html

EVIDENCE – accused indicted for conspiracy to murder – evidence of accused’s DNA found on cigarette butt in vehicle allegedly used by him in the course of the conspiracy – cigarette butt destroyed following scientific analysis – accused deprived of the opportunity to independently test the item – where other items located in the vicinity of the cigarette butt not seized and tested – whether evidence of DNA analysis should be excluded on the basis of unfair prejudice – whether, in the event of the evidence being admitted, the jury should be directed about the disadvantage to the accused as a consequence of the destruction of evidence

Machhour v The Queen [2014] VSCA 225 (17 September 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/225.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Arson – Election against refusal by Judicial Registrar of application for extension of time within which to file application for leave to appeal against conviction – Delay of almost two years in instituting appeal – Proposed appeal without merit – Application refused – No point of principle.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Election against refusal by Judicial Registrar of application for extension of time within which to file application for leave to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Proposed appeal without merit – Application refused – No point of principle.

Lau v R [2014] NSWCCA 179 (12 September 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/179.html

CRIMINAL LAW – CONVICTION APPEAL – attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border control drug – 102 kilograms of pure heroin – whether a miscarriage of justice because of lack of qualifications of expert interpreter called in Crown case – whether verdict of jury unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence – whether evidence as to flight properly admitted – evidence of Crown expert not misleading – differences in interpretation between Crown and defence experts not of significance in conduct of trial – differences in interpretation adequately explained by differences in audio equipment – strong circumstantial Crown case – on whole of the evidence open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to guilt – evidence of flight properly admitted – no breach of s137 of the Evidence Act 1995 in admitting evidence of flight – conviction appeal dismissed – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – whether principle of parity properly taken into account – no significant difference in level of criminality between applicant and co-offender – differences in subjective case of applicant and co-offender – sentence of co-offender manifestly inadequate – parity principle not properly applied – need for applicant to be re-sentenced.

Kyriazis v The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at Heidelberg & Anor [2014] VSC 411 (1 September 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2014/411.html

ADMINSTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Order 56 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 – Decision of Judicial Registrar in Magistrates’ Court – Decision set aside – Order in nature of certiorari inutile – Re-hearing of charges – Order in the nature of mandamus unavailable – Adjournment application refused.

R v MM [2014] NSWCCA 144 (30 July 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/144.html

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – tendency evidence – admissibility – whether the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the respondent pursuant to s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – whether judicial directions may ameliorate any prejudicial effect
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – context evidence – admissibility – whether evidence of the respondent’s sexual mistreatment of the complainant other than on the occasion charged on the indictment made a relevant contribution to the context of the events charged in the indictment – whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the respondent pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

R v Smith (No.3) [2014] NSWSC 771 (3 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/771.html

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – identification evidence – modes of identification – other visual identification – single photograph – accompanying online news article
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – identification evidence – admissibility – single photograph – unreliability – displacement effect
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Evidence Act 1995; s 137 – prejudicial evidence – probative value – unfairly prejudicial to accused – whether danger of unfair prejudice to the accused outweighs probative value

Lydgate (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 144 (1 July 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/144.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Sexual offences – Sexual penetration of child ‘under his care, supervision or authority’ – Accused was previously Principal of victim’s school – Sexual acts occurred after accused had resigned as Principal – Whether victim remained under accused’s ‘care, supervision or authority’ – Whether evidence of former Principal–pupil relationship admissible – Whether temporal proximity relevant – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 48, 49.

Rajendran v R [2014] NSWCCA 113 (24 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/113.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Practice and procedure – Offence of having sexual intercourse without consent – Where matter referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal following an application under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 – Where referral made on single ground of Muldrock error – Where appellant sought to raise additional grounds – Whether appellant required an extension of time and leave of the Court in order to be able to rely upon such grounds – Where unnecessary to determine that question in light of error found in respect of the ground which was the subject of the referral

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Muldrock error – Where sentencing judge engaged in two-stage process of sentencing – Error made out – Necessity to consider the remaining three grounds in determining whether some other sentence was warranted in law and should have been passed

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Where legislation made provision for alternative bases on which jury could be satisfied of the appellant’s knowledge of lack of consent on the part of the victim – Where Crown submitted on sentence that a finding should be made that the appellant knew that the victim was not consenting to sexual intercourse – Where no contrary submission was made by counsel for the appellant on sentence – Whether sentencing judge had an obligation to consider the remaining alternatives

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Where sentencing judge did not specifically refer to low risk of re-offending – Where specific reference to such risk in Pre-sentence report – Where sentencing judge obviously aware of report – Necessity to make allowance for the fact that reasons were delivered ex tempore immediately following sentence proceedings

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Where error found – Where appellant sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years – Whether some other sentence warranted in law – Nature of offending – Where appellant misrepresented to victim that he was able to assist her career ambitions – Where offending not planned – Where statements made by victim along with her demeanour clearly indicated a lack of consent – Where appellant forced intercourse in any event – No other sentence warranted

Velkoski v The Queen [2014] VSCA 121 (18 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/121.html

EVIDENCE – Tendency evidence – Review of intermediate appellate court decisions – Principle to be applied to determine admissibility – Hoch v The Queen [1988] HCA 50; (1988) 165 CLR 292; R v Papamitrou [2004] VSCA 12; (2004) 7 VR 375; R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319; (2003) 58 NSWLR 700; W v The Queen [2001] FCA 1648; (2001) 115 FCR 41; CGL v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2010] VSCA 26; (2010) 24 VR 486; AE v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 52; PNJ v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2005] NSWCCA 338; (2010) 27 VR 486; (2005) 156 A Crim R 308; NAM v The Queen [2010] VSCA 95; GBF v The Queen [2010] VSCA 135; R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306; (2009) 273 ALR 286; JLS v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 328; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v BCR [2010] VSCA 229; PG v The Queen [2010] VSCA 289; CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288; KRI v The Queen [2011] VSCA 127; (2011) 207 A Crim R 552; RHB v The Queen [2011] VSCA 295; RJP v The Queen (2011) 215 A Crim R 315; RR v The Queen [2011] VSCA 442; DR v The Queen [2011] VSCA 440; CEG v The Queen [2012] VSCA 55; Reeves v The Queen [2013] VSCA 311; R v PWD [2010] NSWCCA 209; (2010) 205 A Crim R 75; BSJ v The Queen [2012] VSCA 93; (2012) 35 VR 475; Semaan v The Queen [2013] VSCA 134; Murdoch v The Queen [2013] VSCA 272; SLS v The Queen [2014] VSCA 31R; CV v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [2014] VSCA 58; Doyle v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 4; Sokolowskyj v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 55; DAO v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 63; (2011) 81 NSWLR 568; RH v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 55, considered – Cross-admissibility of three complainants’ evidence – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 97.

CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – Failure to object to evidence – Whether tendency evidence – Whether words ‘is not admissible’ in Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 97 should be construed as ‘is not admissible over objection’ – R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258; Gonzales v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 321; (2007) 178 A Crim R 232; FDP v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 317; (2008) 74 NSWLR 645, considered – Deliberate decision for forensic reasons not to object – R v Radford (1993) 66 A Crim R 210; Shaw v The Queen (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, Dowd and Hidden JJ, 3 April 1996); R v Gay [[1976] VR 577, followed – Waiver – R v Clarke [2005] VSCA 294; (2005) 13 VR 75; R v McCosker [2010] QCA 52; [2011] 2 Qd R 138, followed – Whether trial judge under duty to intervene.

CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – Directions to jury – Inadequate directions as to tendency reasoning – Identification of features of tendency evidence necessary – Explanation necessary as to why tendency evidence makes fact in issue more probable – RR v The Queen [2011] VSCA 442; RJP v The Queen (2011) 215 A Crim R 315, considered – Inappropriate direction as to sexual interest in complainants as evidence of ‘state of mind’ – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered.

EVIDENCE – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 377(3) – Exception to hearsay rule – Whether fact asserted in previous representation must be subject of evidence by person who makes assertion – Complainant recants previous assertion – Evidence should therefore have been excluded.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Whether verdicts unsafe or unsatisfactory – Verdict of acquittal entered on Charges 3 and 11.

Peterson (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2014] VSCA 111 (6 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/111.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Review of the trial judge’s refusal to certify with respect to interlocutory decision – Identification evidence – Applicant arraigned and pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing a charge of intentionally causing serious injury – Complainant identified the applicant from a photograph on Facebook – Whether probative value of identification evidence outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – Trial judge refused to exclude the identification evidence – Application was made for certification – Certification refused – Application to review certification decision refused – Interlocutory decision plainly correct – Whether reasons for granting leave ‘clearly outweigh any disruption to trial’ – Application for review – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 295 (2)–(3), 296, 297 (2).

Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100 (5 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2014/100.html

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – whether defence counsel implicitly relied upon s 137 Evidence Act at trial – whether trial judge obliged to consider application of s 137 in the absence of reliance on that section – whether leave required pursuant to r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules where objection to admission of evidence is taken on one basis at trial and on a different basis on appeal – leave under r 4 refused – whether trial judge failed to advise jury of limitations on use of the evidence and to properly direct jury on motive to lie

Ulutui v The Queen [2014] VSCA 110 (4 June 2014)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2014/110.html

CRIMINAL LAW – Whether admission of evidence of appellant’s participation in a prior assault should have been excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – Prior assault provided motive for and inextricably linked to offences charged – Appellant bound by rational forensic decision of counsel not to object to admission of evidence – Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 80 ALJR 614; Suresh v The Queen [1998] HCA 23; (1998) 102 A Crim R 18; and James v The Queen [2013] VSCA 55, followed – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Whether admission of evidence of appellant’s participation in a prior assault controverted the appellant’s acquittal for that assault – Fact of acquittal not placed in evidence – No manifest inconsistency between evidence adduced and the fact of the appellant’s acquittal – Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that it could not reach a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the prior assault – Storey v The Queen [1978] HCA 39; (1978) 140 CLR 364; R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; Gilham v The Queen (2012) 224 A Crim R 22; R v VN [2006] VSCA 111; (2006) 15 VR 113; and Washer v Western Australia [2007] HCA 48; (2007) 234 CLR 492, followed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Whether trial judge erred in failing to give an anti-propensity warning in relation to the evidence of appellant’s participation in the prior assault – No requirement to give an anti-propensity warning where there is minimal or non-existent risk of evidence being used for propensity reasoning – R v Georgiev [2001] VSCA 18; (2001) 119 A Crim R 363; Conway v The Queen [2000] FCA 461; (2000) 98 FCR 204; and FDP v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 317; (2008) 74 NSWLR 645, followed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Kidnapping – Whether directions to jury impermissibly expanded Crown case – Whether kidnapping is a continuing offence – Davis v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 392 and R v Vu [2011] BCCA 112, followed – Leave to appeal refused.